BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 mettrg m. Sage 
 
 189Z 
 
 A.U/'A:;^.^..Y M...^/^./.^M4: 
 
 5474 
 
The date shows when this volume was taken. 
 
 All books not in use 
 for instruction or re- 
 search are limited to 
 r ^ four weeks to all bor- 
 
 ; f rowers. 
 
 Periodicals of a gen- 
 eral character should 
 be returned as soon as 
 possible ; when needed 
 beyond two weeks a 
 special request should 
 be made. 
 
 All student borrow- 
 ers are limited to two 
 weeks, with renewal 
 privileges, when the 
 book is not needed by 
 others. 
 
 Books not needed 
 during recess periods 
 should be returned to 
 the library, or arrange- 
 ments made for their 
 return during borrow- 
 er's absence, if wanted. 
 
 Books needed by 
 more than one person 
 belong on the reserve 
 list. 
 
 3 -,-§-2^-092 656 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924092556426 
 
FBEE TRADE SPEECHES 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
THE 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. CHARLES PELHAM VILLIEES, M.P. 
 
 WITH A POLITICAL MEMOIR 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 A MEMBER OF THE COBDEN CLUB 
 
 Under circumstances of infinite difficulty, the cause of total and 
 immediate Eepeal was first and solely upheld by the tei-se eloquence 
 and vivid perception of Charles Villiers — Disraeli's Life of Lord 
 George Bentinck 
 
 IX TWO VOLUMES— VOL. L 
 
 LONDON 
 KEG AN PAUL, TRENCH, & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
 1883 
 
'"^l-h 
 
 A, 
 
 n^-\ir\- 
 
 {The rights of translation and of repwdnciion are reserved) 
 
TO 
 
 THE CONSTITUENCY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BOROUGH OF WOLVEEHAMPTON. 
 
 Yielding to the wish frequently conveyed to him, 
 Mr. ViLLiEES has consented that his Speeches on Free 
 Trade, for the advocacy of which he first obtained 
 your suffrages, should be collected together ; and, 
 with his permission, they are now devoted to your 
 service anew, in remembrance of the unbroken trust 
 that, for close upon half a century, has connected 
 him with your Borough. 
 
 The Editor. 
 
 February 1883. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 OP 
 
 THE FIRST VOLUME. 
 
 SPEECH PAGE 
 
 Political Memoir ix 
 
 I. House op Commons, March 15, 1838 . . 1 
 
 II. House of Commons, February 19, 1839 . . 46 
 
 III. House of Commons, March 12, 1839 . 82 
 
 IV. House of Commons, July 9, 1839 . . 124 
 V. House of Commons, April 1, 1840 . . .144 
 
 VI. House op Commons, May 26, 1840 . . . 199 
 
 VII. Manchester, April 15, 1841 . . . .236 
 
 VIII House op Commons, June 7, 1841 . . . 246 
 
 IX. House op Commons, August 27, 1841 . . 252 
 
 X. House of Commons, February 18, 1842 . . 275 
 
 XI. House op Commons, April 18, 1842 . . 316 • 
 
 XII. Manchester, January 3, 1843 . . . 338 
 
 XIII. Drury Lane Theatre, March 22, 1843 . . 362 
 
 XIV. House op Commons, April 25, 1843 . . . 380 
 
Erratiim. 
 Page 239, line 27, /or ' presided at nearly ' read 'was present at.' 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIE. 
 
 The statesman by whom the speeches contained in 
 these volumes were delivered holds the unique posi- 
 tion of having uninterruptedly represented the same 
 constituency, the constituency of Wolverhampton, 
 for nearly half a century. And during that long 
 period he has enjoyed a triumph that no other 
 statesman has ever before enjoyed. He has seen all 
 the leading men of the empire become converts to the 
 principles of a great commercial policy which, ful- 
 filling to the utmost his reiterated predictions, has 
 freed the people from the heaviest burden of injustice 
 that ever pressed upon a nation, and completely 
 changed the financial and economical intercourse of 
 England with foreign nations ; but which at the 
 beginning of his Parliamentary career, ' almost alone 
 in the House of Commons, and without support in 
 the country,' he advocated in the face of the scorn 
 and ridicule of all parties, and afterwards continued 
 to advocate and inculcate with imfaltering fidelity and 
 
X POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 consistency through years of determined and oppro- 
 brious opposition until the cause of Free Trade was 
 gained, and the blessing of untaxed bread secured for 
 the people. 
 
 In 1815 the Corn Laws were passed at the 
 point of the bayonet, and their course was marked 
 by scenes of violence resulting, on more than one 
 occasion, in the execution of some of those who 
 had been driven to desperation by the sufferings they 
 endured from want of bread. 
 
 In 1846 the pressure of famine wrung from a 
 reluctant Legislature the repeal of the Corn Laws, 
 which the pleas of justice and expediency had been 
 equally powerless to win from successive Grovern- 
 ments blinded by self-interest and the superstitions 
 of custom. 
 
 But famine itself would have availed little against 
 the combined strength of legislative power and landed 
 influence had the mass of the people remained in igno- 
 rance of the real cause of the misery that was crush- 
 ing them, and of the legitimate means within their 
 own reach to compel its removal. And, even knowing 
 the cause of their wretchedness, and aided by famine, 
 the people would have been a very long time in 
 making their power felt had their rulers been suffered 
 to follow untaught and unrebuked by men of their 
 own order the narrow lines of the selfish and destruc- 
 tive policy of Monopoly. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XI 
 
 No one single cause effected the repeal of the 
 Corn Laws, and with it the overthrow of Protection. 
 It was not Mr. Villiers's eight years' vigorous ad- 
 vocacy, in and out of Parliament, of untaxed bread 
 for the people that alone did this. Nor the influence 
 of Sir Robert Peel ; nor the ' unadorned eloquence ' 
 of Richard Cobden ; nor the untiring energy of 
 I\Ir. Bright ; nor the trenchant writings of Peronnet 
 Thompson ; nor the thrilling lines of Ebenezer Elliot ; 
 nor the gigantic wave of subscriptions ridden and 
 ruled by the Member for Stockport ; nor ' famine 
 itself, against which we had warred, which after- 
 wards joined us ' — not any one of these alone effected 
 Repeal. The repeal of the Corn Laws — the Devil's 
 Laws, as the ' Times ' boldly called them — was due, 
 as all great measures are due, to the concurrence of 
 numerous causes, to the united action of various 
 agents, to the sagacity and firmness of many leaders. 
 But Mr. Villiers will be known in history as the first 
 leader of that band of earnest men who, with a singu- 
 lar grasp of fact and circumstance, clearly estimated 
 the diJfferent forces of class interest, prejudice, and 
 ignorance which, under the name of Protection, en- 
 thralled commerce, and kept the masses of the people 
 constantly exposed to all the miseries of want and 
 its consequences ; and undertook the laborious task 
 of initiating the overthrow of the pernicious system 
 of Monopoly in the only effectual way in which it 
 
xii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 could be undertaken : namely, by fully exposing the 
 fallacies by which, with incalculable detriment to the 
 community at large, a crying injustice was being 
 maintained ; and, whilst rousing the people out of 
 the lethargy of ignorance, to guide and restrain them, 
 in the early hours of their -waking, from an unwise or 
 unlawful use of their knowledge. 
 
 The pangs of hunger opened the eyes and ears of 
 those who toil for the necessities of the day, and 
 made them comparatively apt and docile pupils. But 
 political economy is a dry study for the opulent and 
 leisured classes. Steeped in the prejudices of 'special 
 interests ' and the fallacies of Protection, the typical 
 landowner of the early part of this century, blind 
 himself, blinded the farmer and the labourer de- 
 pendent on him, and treated the concrete arguments 
 of scarcity and distress which went home to the poor 
 as if they were the mere abstractions of the theorist. 
 ' He made everything clear, and said naethtng but 
 what was perfectly true,' said the shrewd Scotchman 
 after his first lesson from the Free Trade lecturer, 
 ' and proved that the Corn Laws did us nae guid, and 
 that their repeal would do us nae Ul ; but it's of nae 
 use to convince us unless he convinces our landlords 
 too, for we maun just do as they bid us.' Now it was 
 precisely with this class — the great landed interest, as 
 it was called — that Mr. Villiers had to deal directly in 
 the first instance. And most fortunate it was that 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIK. XUl 
 
 he could do so as tlie representative of Wolverhamp- 
 ton. Together with Manchester, Wolverhampton 
 took the lead of all the other boroughs created under 
 the Reform Bill of 1832 in opposing the Corn 
 Laws. And it was his representation of that great 
 manufacturing constituency, closely connected by 
 commercial relations with America, that, in addition 
 to his social rank, gave weight and significance to his 
 advocacy of Free Trade in general and the repeal of 
 the Corn Laws in particular when as a young man 
 Mr. Villiers was first returned to Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Villiers, the third son of the late Hon. 
 George Villiers and Theresa, the only daughter of the 
 first Lord Boringdon, and brother of the late Earl of 
 Clarendon, was born in London in 1802, After 
 studying some time at Haileybury College, with a 
 view to an Indian career, Mr. Villiers, his health not 
 being found sufiiciently strong for India, went to 
 Cambridge, where he graduated in 1824. At Hailey- 
 bury he was the pupil of Malthus and Sir James 
 Mackintosh ; and there he not only became a diligent 
 student of economical science, but he also showed 
 decided bias in favour of those distinctive prin- 
 ciples that were the foundation of his public life. His 
 course of studies in political economy was finally com- 
 pleted under Mr. M'CuUoch, who was then esteemed 
 the soundest exponent of the doctrines of Adam 
 Smith. 
 
XIV POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 At the General Election of 1826 Mr. Villiers was 
 a candidate for the representation of Hull on Free 
 Trade principles, and as a supporter of Huskisson 
 and Canning, whose determined opposition to com- 
 mercial monopolies naturally attracted his sympathy. 
 He was defeated by a small majority, and from that 
 time till 1834 abstained from seeking any other 
 seat. 
 
 In 1827 he was called to the Bar, and afterwards 
 became successively Secretary to the Master of the 
 Rolls, and Examiner in the Court of Chancery. 
 
 Prior to the above appointments, he was, in 
 1832, selected as an Assistant Commissioner under 
 the Royal Commission for inquiry into the adminis- 
 tration and practical operation of the Poor Laws. 
 This inquiry was of gi*eat advantage to one so capable 
 of profiting by the experience to be derived from it 
 as Mr. Villiers was. It brought him into direct 
 contact with the labouring classes, and introduced 
 him to one of the most instructive branches of poli- 
 tical science. He ' actually touched the political facts 
 that surrounded him.' And it was the real appre- 
 hension of the condition and needs of the people he 
 then gained that constituted one of the sources of his 
 strength during the prolonged opposition he after- 
 wards met with when he came to deal with some of 
 the gravest economical questions of our times. 
 
 Under the old Poor Laws, the greater part of the 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XV 
 
 ■whole nation was becoming pauperized and demoral- 
 ized at an annual cost of over 7,000,000?. to tlie 
 ratepayers. That wretched system, in truth, offered 
 a premium to idleness and vice, and threatened the 
 extinction of all honest, mdependent labour. Parlia- 
 mentary Committees were appointed one after another 
 to inquire into the evils, manifestly on the increase year 
 by year, which were generated by it. But it was not 
 until the Royal Commission of 1832 had thoroughly 
 investigated the condition of every parish in England 
 and Wales, and completed its Report disclosing the 
 appalling nature of the mischief which had brought 
 the country to the brink of ruin, that it was possible 
 to devise and mature such a comprehensive measure 
 of reform as the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. 
 
 This Act, by its stringent provisions designed for 
 throwing the labourer on his own resources, supposed 
 and necessitated the repeal of the Corn Laws upon 
 which it depended for its successful operation. And 
 this was impressed upon Lord John Russell and 
 Lord Althorp, the Ministers who were responsible 
 for the measure ; but the point was at the time dis- 
 regarded. 
 
 When Mr. VUUers first came forward for Wolver- 
 hampton at the General Election of 1835 it was as 
 the exponent of the same principles as those he had 
 supported nine years previously at Hull, and he was 
 returned avowedly in opposition to the Corn Laws. 
 
 VOL. I. a 
 
XVI POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 On the hustings in 1837 he went further : he 
 pledged himself to move in the House of Commons 
 for the total repeal of the Corn Laws. This step, a 
 very bold one in those days, when the bare idea of 
 interference with the Corn Laws was looked upon as 
 something far worse than quixotic, was the result of a 
 meeting at Sir William Molesworth's, when the small 
 party of remarkable men, including Grote, Hume, 
 Warburton, James Mill, and Charles BuUer, already 
 renowned as the Radical Reform party, and dis- 
 tinguished for their strong advocacy of the various 
 measures of reform with which their names are now 
 historically associated,^ urged upon Mr. Villiers to 
 take for his special subject in Parliament the opposi- 
 tion to the Corn Laws, and the question of Repeal, 
 as affording the best field for the exercise of his 
 
 ^ ' There was no otlier party which, in 1837, was known to inchide 
 such men as Grote, Molesworth, and Roehuck, and Colonel Thompson, and 
 Joseph Hume, and William Ewart, and Charles Buller, and "Ward, and 
 ViUiers, and Bulwer, and Strutt ; such a phalanx of strength as these men — 
 with their philosophy, their science, their reading, their experience ; the 
 acuteness of some, the doggedness of others, the seriousness of most, and 
 the mirth of a few — might have become, if they could have become a 
 phalanx at all. But nothing was more remarkable about these men than 
 their individuality, . . . They were called upon, before the opening of the 
 new Parliament, to prove that they were not single-subject men, as re- 
 formers are pretty sure to be considered before they are compacted into a 
 party, but to show that the principles which animated their prosecution 
 of single reforms were applicable to the whole of legislation. . . . They 
 were never more regarded as a party during the period under om- notice ; 
 and it may be observed now, though it was not then, that their failing 
 to become a party in such a crisis as the last struggles of the Melbourne 
 Mhiistry was a prophecy of the disintegration of parties which was at 
 hand, and which is, in its tui-n, a prophecy of a new age in the political 
 history of England.— 'Martineau, A History of the ThiHy Yem-s Peace. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XVII 
 
 known mastery of economical science in its political 
 and social bearings, and his singular gift of close 
 and acute argumentative power. 
 
 In tlie speech that Mr. Villiers made the year 
 followmg his return to Parliament, at a public dinner 
 given by the constituency of Wolverhampton to him 
 and his colleague Mr. Thornley, we have a complete 
 sketch of the general line of liberal poHcy which he 
 has never once departed from, and which has con- 
 nected his name with all the great popular measures 
 of the period. Any consideration of his political 
 career, therefore, would be imp erfect without a special 
 notice of this speech. 
 
 After he had alluded to the approbation mani- 
 fested by his constituents of the course he had 
 pursued during the preceding long Session, and their 
 cordial recognition of his services, he went on to 
 express his satisfaction at his excep tional fortune in 
 representing the borough of Wolverhampton : — 
 
 ' Its interests,' he said, ' are completely identical 
 with those of the nation at large. As you are 
 interested in no monopoly, and holders of no privi- 
 leges with which the mass of the nation do not 
 heartily sympathize, I may conclude that when I 
 have secured your approval of my pubhc conduct, I 
 have done something to deserve the praise of the 
 country at large ; and animated by this reflection, 
 beheve me that I shall return with fresh heart to the 
 
 a -2 
 
XVIU POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 place where you sent me this time last year, there 
 cordially to labour with others in that reform of our 
 laws and institutions which alone can secure for 
 them the confidence and esteem of the people.' 
 
 And then, having dwelt upon the great measure 
 of reform in the representation of the people of five 
 years back, and the almost more important one that 
 closed the Session of 1835 — the Municipal Reform 
 BiU, ' a noble work, passing power from the evil 
 doer to the rightful owner ' — he forcibly insisted 
 upon the duty that devolved upon the representatives 
 of the people to devote their energies to the reforms 
 that were yet most urgently needed in the country, 
 and passed in rapid review the abases in the civil 
 and ecclesiastical institutions of Ireland, the civil dis- 
 abilities tliat harassed the Dissenters, restrictions on 
 trade, the mal-administration of law, and the need of 
 education for the people. 
 
 His language relating to Ireland and the intoler- 
 able injustice it had sustained at our hands was dis- 
 tinguished by a largeness of mind so exceptional in 
 those days that it is difficult to reahze its full sig- 
 nificance now that we have grown accustomed to 
 generous acts of reparation which, under presently 
 existmg circumstances, seem to the impatient to 
 have been made in vain to heal the wounds of that 
 unhappy country : — 
 
 ' Let us also ask what we should feel if we be- 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XIX 
 
 longed to four-fifths of a population honestly differing 
 in religion from the remainder, bound to contribute 
 the property bequeathed for the support of our own 
 religion to that of the minority ; and with this wrong 
 aggravated, as we should think, by the declaration of 
 honest Protestants in England that the Irish Church, 
 ia all its superfluities, in all its inefficiency, in all 
 the iniquity with which it has been maintained, has 
 been a scandal to Christendom ! Ireland is the only 
 instance in Christendom where religion has been so 
 administered as to bring Protestantism into discredit ; 
 for Protestants cannot deny the evidence of their 
 own witnesses that after the experiment of a hundred 
 years under the influence of that vast and wealthy 
 Establishment, Protestantism has diminished ! . . . 
 
 ' I am almost ashamed of thus dwelling upon this 
 topic among men of generous feeling, as I know the 
 unity of sentiment that must prevail among you ; but 
 when we see the sophistry employed to mislead the 
 public mind upon the matter, it is right that upon 
 such occasions as the present we should raise our 
 voice to proclaim the truth.' 
 
 He next denounced the late Ministers for their 
 efibrts to defeat the measure for devoting the surplus 
 revenues of the Irish Church ' to the sacred purpose 
 of extending moral and religious instruction among 
 British subjects in Ireland without distinction of 
 religion ;' and then defended O'Connell — afterwards 
 
XX POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 one of his most steadfast allies in the long fight for the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws— against his political assail- 
 ants, and claimed municipal reform for the Irish on the 
 same grounds that he had supported it for England 
 and Scotland : namely, ' because it makes the people 
 parties to their own government, trains them to the 
 use of power, and trusts them with the duty as it 
 teaches them the interest of upholding law and ex- 
 tending security to all.' 
 
 Coming to the subject of Free Trade, though on 
 the whole he viewed the success of the question with 
 more hope than after years proved there were 
 grounds for, he showed that lie foresaw the kind 
 of opposition that was in store for him ; and im- 
 pressed upon his audience the necessity for com- 
 bination against the efforts that Monopolists were 
 uniting to make for the promotion of their own 
 ends : — 
 
 ' I am now reminded by the emblem ^ before me 
 to refer to a matter most important to your interest ; 
 and one in which the rulers of this country have 
 acted with much of the caprice that has been ex- 
 hibited in the matter of religion. I refer to freedom 
 in commerce, which, like freedom in thought, all say 
 they approve, but to which, when asked to give 
 practical effect to their approval, all are sure to find 
 
 ' Eeferring to a transparency at the end of the room, upon which was 
 inscribed ' Free Trade,' ' Justice to Ireland/ &c. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXI 
 
 an obstacle. The landowner, the shipowner, the 
 West Indian merchant, all approve of Free Trade in 
 what they consmne ; but in the sources of their 
 income and profit there are no more staunch sup- 
 porters of prohibitive law ; they are always reasoning 
 as if the country were made for them, and not they 
 for the country, and in their ignorance they are ever 
 blind to the fact tliat while they seek to profit by the 
 losses of others, they are again injured by a like 
 injustice. On this point, gentlemen, I begin to hope 
 that successful experiment, and the prospect of 
 danger that may arise from the opposite system, are 
 beginning to open the eyes of the most dense in this 
 town to the advantage of Free Trade. Observe, for 
 instance, the outcry that was raised against opening 
 trade with the East, and see the results which one 
 year has shown in favour of that measure. It was 
 repeatedly asserted by the friends of Monopoly that 
 the people had as much and as cheap tea as could 
 be consumed in this country ; that the people in 
 China had no further demand for our manufactures ; 
 and that Free Trade in tea was only the vision 
 of a theorist. I need not tell you what increase of 
 consumption nor what faU of price has occurred in 
 that article ; nor need I say (which, indeed, I have 
 been told in this borough) that the increase of our 
 exports to the East is one cause of the present im- 
 provement in trade. See, then, the advantage of 
 
Xxii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 Free Trade to the poor man : whatever he pays less 
 for his tea, he has that more in his pocket to pay for 
 what else he requires. And again, the more tea we 
 bring into this country, the more goods we produce 
 to send out to China, and the more employment is 
 thus given to the industrious classes of this country. 
 ' And now for one moment observe the effect of 
 fettering our commerce. We impose high duties 
 upon timber and corn, which articles we might get 
 cheaper and better from countries in Europe than 
 anywhere else. But by our high duties we have 
 given to these countries a pretext for excluding our 
 goods ; and within two years a union in Germany 
 has been formed of twenty-five millions of souls to 
 resist the import of our manufactures. And, let me 
 remind you, these countries have not all the disad- 
 vantages with which England, notwithstanding all 
 her advantages, is encumbered. Their habits are as 
 peaceful and industrious as ours ; they have no debt 
 in pr'oportion to ours ; their living is cheaper than 
 ours ; and their chief manufactures are those which 
 your customers chiefly demand. Let not, then, I say, 
 any present improvements in trade induce you to 
 lose sight of that great principle of policy. Free 
 Trade ; but rather, in these days when Monopolists 
 are uniting to promote their own ends, let districts like 
 these associate together to secure for the people the 
 more benevolent system which will give them cheap 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXIU 
 
 food, good trade, and a friendly intercourse with all 
 the nations of the globe. On this subject I am happy 
 to think that the sentiments of the Ministry accord 
 with your own ; and you have therefore additional 
 reason to give them support.' 
 
 Further on he adverted to the changes which 
 were then urgently needed in the law, and insisted 
 particularly upon the necessity for rendering it more 
 accessible to the people by providing local tribunals 
 — such as the County Courts which have since been 
 established : — 
 
 ' There is another matter also in which public 
 interest is deeply concerned, and in which the 
 Grovernment have lately shown honest purpose of 
 attending to the long- sought demands of the people : 
 I mean the reform of the law and the arrangements 
 for its administration. It might well be asked by a 
 foreigner in this country, how it could occur that the 
 Enghsh, so prudent in many respects, should over- 
 look so important a condition of their social well- 
 being as a cheap and effective administration of 
 justice. Such, however, is the case ; and it is the 
 reproach of this country that our law is without those 
 essentials which have from all time been named by 
 every speaker, vsriter, or thinker upon the subject as 
 belonging to any good system : namely, cheapness, cer- 
 tainty, and expedition. . . . What, then, is it that the 
 representatives of the people should exert themselves 
 
XXIV POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 to procure for the people ? That which it was 
 said under the Commonwealth would above every- 
 thing cause that Government to be loved : the law 
 expressed in plain language, and not in a jargon 
 which takes a life to understand. To let it mean 
 what it expresses, and not a dozen other things, 
 which are traps for the unwary. And to make it 
 accessible to all — not, in the sense of the "London 
 Tavern," to all who can pay to enter, but to the poor- 
 est nian who can be wronged. . . . But above all, I 
 should say, the establishment of local courts, presided 
 over by responsible and competent men, is most indis- 
 pensable to the wants and business of this country.' 
 To meet the distrust of the people manifested by 
 his political opponents, especially in their resistance 
 to the Municipal Corporation Eeform Bill, and their 
 reliance on military force to quell the disturbance and 
 rioting common at election times, Mr. VUliers quoted 
 Sir Robert Peel, and, in showing that it was as much 
 the interest of the poor householder as of the rich to 
 prevent confusion, said that with the late Prime 
 Minister he particularly approved of one part of the 
 Bill as specially calculated to prevent in all corporate 
 towns the odious collisions of the military with the 
 people that, previous to the passing of the Act, had 
 been of frequent occurrence, though some partisans 
 were thought to be building hopes of power on their 
 more frequent occurrence, adding : — 
 
POLITICAIi MEMOIR. XXV 
 
 ' Peace and good order are the interest of the 
 people. Despotism is the fruit of confusion, which 
 those who are ever talking of fighting doubtless well 
 know. I say, give the people instruction, and give 
 them power ; strilce to the ground every obstacle to 
 their information ; then their interests will be obvious 
 to them, and they will act upon their interests, which 
 are those of the community at large.' 
 
 Two years after this speech, on the 15th of March, 
 1838, Mr. Yilliers brought forward the question of the 
 Corn Laws in the House of Commons. The wording of 
 his first annual motion showed how accurately he had 
 gauged the temper of the House, and how thoroughly 
 he then realized the profound hostility that prevailed 
 in Parliament to anything approaching Repeal. 
 
 The Corn Law question was called an open 
 one because, on forming his second Administration, 
 Lord Melbourne allowed Mr. Poulett Thomson, Su' 
 Henry Parnell, and Lord Dalmeny — when they stipu- 
 lated for it as the condition of their joining his 
 Ministry — to vote as they pleased on it ; knowing 
 fi-om the strength of the landed interest in the House 
 of Commons that their support could avail httle to 
 the small minority for Repeal, whilst it would give him 
 the advantage of colleagues who stood well with the 
 Manchester, Dundee, and Dunfermline constituencies. 
 
 This speech exhibits at the very outset of his 
 career in the cause of Free Trade the spirit of mode- 
 
XXVI POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 ration that in later times Mr. Yilliers exercised with 
 a most salutary effect when, class being set against 
 class, the people were in danger of being carried away 
 by their feelings, and damaging a just cause. It, more- 
 over, embraces most if not all of the leading points of 
 the controversy that were again and again brought 
 forward during the succeeding years, and again and 
 again had to be treated from every point of view 
 with greater or less amphfication — often necessarily 
 involving more or less repetition — to meet the exigen- 
 cies of the moment, and conquer the stubbornness or 
 stupidity as well as the fears of prejudiced and 
 interested opponents. 
 
 Fully cognizant of aU the circumstances of the 
 steadily increasing distress in the country, and fore- 
 seeing its inevitable results if the main cause of it 
 were not at once dealt with, Mr. VHliers predicted 
 how in a moment of desperate excitement the nation 
 would at a future day compel the concession of Repeal 
 if it were not granted with deliberation in that moment 
 of calm — a prediction that, to the dismay of both 
 Lord John Russell and Sir R. Peel, was fulfilled only 
 too literally in 1845. And his clear, concise charge 
 against the Corn Laws as an embodiment of Protec- 
 tion, false in principle and evil in effect, is followed 
 by a categorical exposure of the most prevalent 
 fallacies involved in the Protectionist pleas of in- 
 demnity, special burdens on land, the revenue, general 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXVll 
 
 taxation, local taxation, tlie tithes, the malt-tax. The 
 estimate — imperfect because too moderate — -of the 
 annual cost to the community at large of the Protec- 
 tion afforded by the Corn Laws to a mere class 
 interest on the strength of these pleas is shown to 
 have amounted to 15,600,000^. 
 
 Next, turning to our foreign trade, we find the 
 pernicious mfluence of the Corn Laws traced in the 
 paralysis of most of our manufactures, the complete 
 loss of our market for others, and the blundering 
 policy with other nations that our Ministers had been 
 led into through their disregard of the great commer- 
 cial interests of England. All of which were telling 
 unmistakably on the condition of the people, in- 
 cluding the agricultural population of both farmers 
 and labourers, and bringing about the gravest dis- 
 tress. There was but one conclusion to be drawn 
 from this mdictment against the Corn Laws : — 
 
 ' Commercial liberty is now as essential to the 
 well-being of this country as civil and religious 
 liberty have been considered to be in former times ; 
 , . . and, therefore, it becomes every public man 
 who seeks reform for public good to procure for his 
 country the emancipation of its industry ; and to win 
 for its hard-working people freedom to fulfil the 
 designs of nature, by exchanging with their fellow - 
 men in other countries the fruits of their respective 
 labours.' ^ 
 
 • Speeches, vol. i. p. 44, 
 
XXVlll POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 On the 9th of May following, Colonel Seale moved 
 for the second reading of his Bill to permit the grind- 
 ing of wheat m bond for foreign export. It was a 
 measure that could not in the smallest degree affect 
 the landed class ; it would simply have saved ship- 
 owners the inconvenience and loss of provisioning 
 their vessels at foreign ports, with the additional 
 advantage to this country of creating employment at 
 our seaport towns. But after the Bill had passed the 
 first reading, there was a scare among the land- 
 owners ; and so suspicious were they of the least 
 change in the existing law that might affect their 
 monopoly that they raised a cry of class legislation, 
 declared the measure to be for the benefit of the com- 
 mercial at the cost of the agricultural interest, and 
 actually threw out the Bill lest the bran fi-om the 
 foreign wheat should be used to feed pigs and 
 poultry. 
 
 Mr. VUliers's speech on the occasion told in 
 the country, though his warning was received with 
 derision in the House : — 
 
 ' I am glad, however, to think,' he said in conclu- 
 sion, ' that whatever the result of the vote of to-night 
 may be, it cannot be otherwise than serviceable. If 
 the measure is carried, a new channel for employment 
 and profit will be opened to our trade, and the com- 
 merce of the country will, in a slight degree, be 
 benefited. But if it is rejected, advantages still more 
 desirable will probably ensue. What is most wanted 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXIX 
 
 just now is some practical illustration of the working 
 of the Corn Laws, and the spirit of those who main- 
 tain them ; somethmg to strike the unagination ; 
 something to rouse those who have too long kissed 
 the rod that has scourged them. All great changes 
 have been preceded by some wanton act of power 
 that was resisted and assailed. I should regard the 
 rejection of the measure now before the House as 
 the East Retford of the Corn Laws. It would be 
 like the preliminary folly that characterizes those 
 whom Heaven has marked as its victims. It would, 
 I believe, really awaken the feeling on the subject of 
 the Corn Laws that has too long been dormant ; and 
 therefore I shall go to the division perfectly at ease, 
 fuUy satisfied that nothing but good can follow 
 from it.' 
 
 In the debate of the 2nd of July of the same year, 
 which followed Lord FitzwUliam's presentation of a 
 petition from Glasgow praying for the repeal of the 
 Corn Laws, Lord Melbourne's declaration that the 
 Government would not take a decided part in the 
 question till it was certain that the majority of the 
 people were in favour of a change, added to the pro- 
 spect of a wet autumn and bad harvest, gave a decided 
 impetus to the Free Traders ; and towards the end of 
 the year the Manchester Anti-Corn Law Association 
 was formed. This was quite independent of the one 
 formed in London some years previously, of which 
 Mr. Villiers was a member. 
 
XXX POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 Early in 1839, Mr. Villiers was invited by the 
 new Association to a public dinner at Mancbester to 
 meet aU tbe Members of Parliament wbo bad sup- 
 ported hitn and voted for bis motion of tbe previous 
 Session, and delegates from tbe otber Anti-Corn Law 
 Associations tbat bad sprung up in various parts 
 of the country. Already an object of their regard 
 before be came in personal contact with them, Mr. 
 ViUiers, on bis first arrival amongst tbe Manchester 
 people, was received with enthusiasm : ' bis appear- 
 ance, . . . the tone of bis address, the knowledge 
 of his subject, tbe closeness of bis argumentation, 
 bis obvious determination to persevere in tbe course 
 he bad undertaken, and the hopefulness of his ex- 
 pectation that the struggle would end in victory, 
 confirmed his bearers in their belief tbat he possessed 
 high qualifications to be tbe leader in the Parliamen- 
 tary contest.' -"^ 
 
 The day after this dinner, at a general meeting of 
 tbe representatives of all tbe Associations then in 
 Manchester, it was resolved that on account of the 
 mischief tbat the Corn Laws were doing to the 
 manufacturmg and commercial mterests, and thereby 
 to the country generally, petitions should be for- 
 warded from all parts of tbe kingdom, praying to be 
 beard by counsel and evidence at tbe Bar of the 
 House of Commons, in the approaching Session, on 
 
 ' Prentice, History of the League, 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXXI 
 
 the operation of the Corn Laws. And this resolution 
 was the substance of the motion of which Mr. Villiers 
 gave notice as soon as Parliament met. 
 
 Though the Queen's Speech omitted all allusion 
 to the Corn Laws, Mr. G. W. Wood, President of 
 the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in seconding 
 the Address, was induced, at the instance of his 
 constituents, to dwell on the injury sustained by the 
 manufacturers and operatives through the exclusion of 
 foreign corn ; but the next moment, with unaccount- 
 able perversity, he completely destroyed the effect 
 his words were designed to produce, and gave Sir R. 
 Peel an advantage of which he was not slow to avail 
 himself in upholding the existing system by ground- 
 less assertions of the prosperity of the country. The 
 delegates listening under the gallery were perfectly 
 amazed at the turn thus given to affairs, whilst the 
 delighted country gentlemen received it with great 
 cheering. Mischievous consequences to the cause of 
 Repeal seemed inevitable from this sudden blow at the 
 hand of a faithless friend ; but immediately after Sir 
 R. Peel had acknowledged his obligations for the very 
 able speech the House had heard in defence of the 
 existing system, Mr. Villiers, with his characteristic 
 promptitude in debate, at once exposed the worth- 
 lessness of the alleged proofs of an improvement in 
 trade, and defeated Sir R. Peel's adroit use of them. 
 
 On the 19th of February Mr. Villiers made his 
 VOL. 1. *b 
 
Xxxii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 famous speech introducing his motion that J. B. 
 Smith and others be heard at the Bar of the House. 
 Abstaining from any consideration of the general 
 effects of the Corn Laws, and limiting himself, ac- 
 cording to the requirements of the occasion, entirely 
 to the grave depression and loss of home and foreign 
 trade caused by the Corn Laws, he argued with un- 
 answerable force and point the necessity of an inquiry, 
 at least, into the allegations of the delegates as to 
 their injurious operation. The occasion and the result 
 of the debate — when Sir F. Burdett declared that 
 such an inquiry would be a waste of time, and Lord 
 J. Russell, though he had told his constituents at 
 Stroud that the laws were indefensible, went into the 
 same lobby with Sir R. Peel, who, maintaining that 
 repeal of the Corn Laws would be grossly unjust 
 to the agi'iculturists labouring under heavy peculiar 
 burdens, said that he should give a decided negative 
 to the motion — are too well known to need more 
 than a passing allusion here. Happily the people 
 had a champion in the House who was courageous as 
 well as sagacious in looking after their interests 
 before they knew how to look after them themselves.^ 
 Nothing daunted by his defeat in February, Mr. 
 Villiers brought forward his second annual motion 
 on the 12th of March. Apathy concerning the Corn 
 Laws was perceptibly diminishing outside the House 
 
 ^ Cobden, Speech at Mancliester, 1843. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXXIU 
 
 as well as within. Mr. Villiers's speech and that of 
 Mr. Poulett Thomson were printed and supplied in 
 thousands to the Corn Law Associations throughout 
 the country ; and whereas on the first motion in 1838 
 the question was dismissed with only one night's dis- 
 cussion, five nights' debate followed the motion of 
 1839, which was warmly supported by O'Connell. 
 
 From his exceptional position, the labours that 
 devolved upon Mr. Villiers increased in the course of 
 time with almost overwhelming rapidity, and brought 
 with them corresponding anxieties. The Anti-Corn 
 Law movement, from its being so eagerly taken up 
 by the Manchester men, early incurred the disad- 
 vantage of being treated by the landed interest as a 
 ' vulgar manufacturers' agitation ' ; and unquestion- 
 ably there was at times considerable danger of the 
 national character of the movement being injured by 
 the angry retorts that were flung to and fro by the 
 commercial and country parties. Indeed, quite lately 
 it has been thought by his admirers no slur upon 
 Cobden to attribute — most unjustly we should say — 
 a retaliatory character to his action in the League. 
 However, whether it be so or not, the imputation 
 has been fastened upon by a clever adversary, and 
 urged with no little effect as damaging in the highest 
 degree both to Cobden and the other leaders of the 
 agitation. But it is not without its use, since it 
 brings into a fi-esh light one of the peculiar difii- 
 
 b2 
 
XXXIV POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 culties Mr. Villiers had to contend with. His keen 
 l^erceptions made him acutely sensitive of the em- 
 barrassments to which the predominance of one body 
 of men in the movement exposed the cause of Repeal 
 in both Houses of Parliament ; whilst their com- 
 parative ignorance of Parliamentary procedure, and 
 the stubborn strength that was arrayed against them 
 in the Legislature, placed them in no little danger, in 
 their impatience of temporary defeat and the con- 
 sciousness of numerical superiority in the country, of 
 compromising the cause by such acts of indiscreet 
 zeal as could only retard the object they had in view. 
 
 Cobden himself would not believe that there could 
 be much difficulty in securing Repeal from the ' re- 
 formed Parliament,' as it was called, until, shortly after 
 the commencement of his friendship with Mr. VUhers, 
 he was present in the House of Commons during a 
 discussion on the Corn Laws. Then, utterly disgusted 
 at the whole scene — the demeanour of the Members, 
 the treatment to which his friend was exposed for 
 advocating Repeal — ' Cobden suddenly left the House, 
 returned to Lancashire that night, and determined 
 that he would never cease to work until the public 
 should be apprised of the character of those laws, 
 and the difficulty of repealing them.' ^ 
 
 But incessant as were the calls of the movement 
 on the attention of Mr. Villiers, they were not 
 
 ' ' The Times,' June 28, 1867, Villiers upon Cobden. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXXV 
 
 allowed to absorb it ; his assistance was constantly 
 claimed to forward the popular cause in any branch 
 of trade or commerce in which the people felt the 
 paralyzing touch of Protection. 
 
 Scarcely had the angry sounds of the debate of 
 1839 on the Corn Duties died away, when he was 
 required by his constituents to present a petition for 
 the total repeal of the protective duties on timber ; 
 and on the 9th of July he moved for a Committee 
 of the whole House to consider the duties levied on 
 foreign and colonial timber. 
 
 This speech shows the same mastery of detail, the 
 same seriousness and absence of mere rhetorical dis- 
 play, the same care in selecting and testing evidence, 
 and disposing the broad facts best calculated to arrest 
 the attention of an indifferent audience, the same 
 shrewd detection and unsparing disclosure of fallacies 
 with which Monopolists veiled and preserved their 
 unjust privileges, that had distinguished his previous 
 statements to the House. It is a history in miniature 
 of the question for those who under happier circum- 
 stances have remained ignorant of the enormous 
 injury that was once inflicted on the shipping interest 
 of England on the pretence of supporting it ; and of 
 the demoralization that was caused in our Canadian 
 colonies, where the wasteful, reckless, gambling busi- 
 ness of lumbering was carried on under the shelter of 
 Protection at an annual cost of 1,500,000^. to this 
 
XXXvi POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 country — in addition to the injury the poorest section 
 of the community sustained in the wretched hovels 
 that the high price of building materials entaUed upon 
 them, and the losses and inconvenience that, from the 
 same cause, were sustained by their rich neighbours. 
 
 The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Poulett 
 Thomson, though he acknowledged the force of Mr. 
 Villiers's statements, and dwelt upon the necessity of 
 urging so important a subject upon public attention, 
 and at the same time expressed his special satis- 
 faction that Mr. Yilliers had brought it under the 
 consideration of the House, nevertheless declared that 
 such was the apathy of Parliament upon all ques- 
 tions of the kind that it would be useless for himself 
 to introduce any measure deaUng with the matter 
 before them, and that under such circumstances it 
 would likewise be useless for Mr. Villiers to press his 
 motion to a division. 
 
 By 1842, after he had objected to the Whig 
 measures of 1841 for the alteration of the com, 
 sugar, and timber duties. Sir Robert Peel came — 
 partly, as he admitted, through the influence of the 
 great Committee on Import Duties — to appreciate 
 the mischiefs caused to the varied industries of the 
 country and the housing of the poor by the enormous 
 inequalities in the existing differential duties shown 
 by Mr. Villiers in 1839 ; though, still bomid in the 
 meshes of Protection, he refused to ' admit an un- 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXXVll 
 
 limited competition witli the colonies in an article of 
 so much importance to them.' Colonial and Baltic 
 timber were put upon an equal footing in 1866, durmg 
 which year all timber duties were abolished. 
 
 When the League summoned the meeting of 
 delegates at Manchester at the beginning of 1840, it 
 was above everything else as an experiment to test the 
 popularity of the subject of Free Trade for agitation ; 
 and they were consequently most anxious to secure 
 the presence of the leading advocates of Repeal. From 
 first to last the meeting was an unprecedented success. 
 The demand for tickets to the banquet given on the 
 occasion could not be supplied when it was known 
 that both O'Connell and the Parliamentary leader of 
 Free Trade were to speak at it. 
 
 Now if anything could have excused a man for 
 momentarily losing sight of the general good of the 
 community in urging the grave needs of an important 
 section of it, or for pressing the special interests of 
 one class to the disregard of another that had been 
 made antagonistic to it, it would have been the sight 
 of that vast assembly in the very centre of commerce 
 and manufacture, crippled by the restrictions imposed 
 upon them for the Protection of what was termed the 
 agricultural interest. But Mr. ViUiers never once 
 forgot his statesmanship and allowed his audience to 
 think that they were met to consider the separate 
 interests of even so considerable a class as they repre- 
 
XXXviii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 sented ; but whilst he dwelt upon the mischief that 
 the Corn Laws were inflicting on trade and com- 
 merce, he also impressed upon them in clear and 
 unmistakable language that they were equally fatal 
 to agriculture, a deception and a fraud upon the far- 
 mer, and opposed to the real and permanent interests 
 of the landlord himself; and then, insisting that 
 trade existed for the benefit of the community and not 
 the community for the benefit of trade, he showed, 
 as he had already shown in the House, that the real 
 ground for opposing the Corn Laws was that they 
 were ruinous to the country at large, destructive of 
 the general good of the community, and the curse 
 of the people. 
 
 On this memorable occasion, Mr. Cobden de- 
 livered a speech of only ten minutes, and Mr. Bright, 
 still little known out of his native town, found a 
 place amongst the rest of the delegates in the body 
 of the hall. 
 
 The following day Mr. Villiers addressed 5,000 
 working men at a second banquet. He had special 
 cause for satisfaction at the support they were giving 
 him in his laborious work in the House ; for, as he 
 told them, after such a meeting he could no longer 
 be taunted with the indifference of the working classes 
 to the question : their presence that day had silenced 
 the cry, ' The working-men are not with you, and 
 therefore your plea for repeal is vain.' 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XXXIX 
 
 Before tlie delegates separated, Mr. Villiers liad 
 promised to bring forward a motion on the Corn 
 Laws on the 26th of March. By that time they had 
 reassembled in London, and arranged deputations to 
 Lord Melbourne, Sir R. Peel, Sir J. Graham, and 
 other leading members of Parliament, to urge upon 
 them the deplorable state of the country through the 
 operation of the Corn Laws, and the consequent 
 necessity of siipporting Mr. Villiers's motion. 
 
 Lord J. Russell, in conjunction with the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer and the President of the 
 Board of Trade, had appointed to receive the largest 
 deputation, including Cobden and most of the leading 
 Manchester men ; but when the deputation arrived 
 in Downing Street, Mr. Baring and Mr. Labouchere 
 only were ready to receive them — Lord J. Russell, 
 it was alleged, was prevented by indisposition from 
 being present. The accounts of the depression in 
 trade given by members of the deputation were of 
 the gravest character ; but they were stated with the 
 utmost moderation and calmness, and their advocacy 
 of Repeal was rested solely on the grounds of justice 
 and humanity — the pretence that it was a manufac- 
 turers' question being explicitly disclaimed. When, 
 however, the worthy Boroughreeve of Manchester, Mr. 
 John Brooks, ' came to give a detail of the distresses 
 of the working classes, and to describe one particular 
 faimly, the members of which, after a life of economy 
 
xl POLITICAL MEMOIB. 
 
 and industry, had been compelled to pawn articles of 
 furniture and clothes one after another, till nothing 
 was left but the bare walls and empty cupboards, his 
 feelings completely overpowered him ; ' according to 
 an eye-witness, ' convulsive sobs choked his utterance, 
 and he was obliged to pause till he recovered from 
 his deep emotion. The tears rolled down the cheeks 
 of Joseph Sturge ; J. B. Smith strove in vain to con- 
 ceal his feelings ; there was scarcely a tearless eye in 
 the multitude ; and the Ministers looked with perfect 
 astonishment at a scene so unusual to statesmen and 
 courtiers.'^ 
 
 Notwithstanding all this evidence of increasing 
 distress, and the evident determination of both the 
 people and manufacturers and their Parliamentary 
 leader not to take a refusal of their most just de- 
 mands, Mr. Yilliers received no support from the 
 Ministers, or mdeed the House, when he brought for- 
 ward his motion in April ; and had it not been for 
 the adroitness of Mr. Warburton in defeating the 
 unfair tactics of the opponents of Eepeal, a vote 
 would not even have been obtained on the question 
 that year. 
 
 Mr. Warburton moved the adjournment of the 
 debate after many of those who were prepared to 
 vote for Mr. Villiers had gone away, in the belief 
 that there would not be a division that night. The 
 
 ' Prentice, History of the League. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIK. xli 
 
 House then went to a division and defeated the 
 motion for the adjournment of the debate by a large 
 majority. Mr. Warburton thereupon at once moved 
 the adjournment of the House, which, having been 
 agreed to, prevented a division on the main question; 
 and so, the original motion having become a dropped 
 order, Mr. ViUiers was able to bring forward the 
 question of the Corn Laws in the May following. 
 
 But in May the conduct of the House — vividly 
 reminding us of scenes recently enacted there — was 
 worse than it had been in April, and would have 
 disheartened any man who failed to apprehend that 
 there are occasions when the most offensive and 
 violent opposition is to be preferred to the dead 
 weight of lukewarmness and indifference. Clearly 
 perceiving the relation of cause and effect between 
 the daily increasing misery of the people throughout 
 the country and the Corn Laws, anticipating the 
 violence that would ensue — and that immediately did 
 ensue in L'eland, when the starving populace of 
 Listowel boarded a vessel loaded with oats, part of 
 which they secured, and the people of Limerick broke 
 into the flour and provision shops of the city — Mr. 
 ViUiers could not even obtain a hearing until the 
 Speaker, losing all patience, commanded the Bar to be 
 cleared and Members to take their seats. But the 
 luU was only a temporary one ; the authority of the 
 Speaker was again set at naught by a renewal of 
 
Xlii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 the disgraceful interruptions, wHch continued until 
 the most riotous went to dinner. Their return was 
 marked by fresh uproar, and when Mr. Mark Philips, 
 the Member for Manchester, whose constituency was 
 numerically equal to the aggregate of fifty boroughs 
 then returning seventy-two members, rose to enforce 
 the claims of the most important manufacturing com- 
 munity of the United Kingdom, the House became 
 so unmanageable that it was found necessary to bring 
 the debate to an abrupt close — no less than six 
 members on the side of Repeal having been obliged 
 to give up all idea of even attempting to gain a 
 hearing. 
 
 The assertions of the landowners that the farm 
 
 labourers were enjopng the benefits of protection to 
 
 agriculture whatever might be the distress amongst 
 
 the manufacturing population — distress which they 
 
 were ready to attribute to over-production, or any 
 
 other cause than the right one — were disproved by a 
 
 public examination as to the condition of a number 
 
 of agricultural labourers, who were brought to London 
 
 for the purpose by the League early in this Session. 
 
 The evidence of these men showed incontrovertibly 
 
 that the wages of the agricultural labourer, even in the 
 
 summer, were scarcely sufiicient to procure the bare 
 
 necessaries of life, that there was no foundation for 
 
 the notion that high prices gave him high wages, that 
 
 he could not live without charity or parish relief — in 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xliii 
 
 a word, that his condition, so far from being benefited 
 by the Corn Laws, was seriously impaired by them. 
 
 But what excited far deeper interest, and ulti- 
 mately effected much greater, almost incalculable, 
 good, was the Committee of 1840 on Import Duties. 
 In his speech at Manchester,-^ Mr. YiUiers briefly 
 alluded to it as a Committee that made some noise, 
 and gave greater offence to the Bread-taxers than 
 any other ever gave. But the Committee itself, as 
 well as its success, was almost entirely due to Mr. 
 VilHers, whose thorough mastery of the subject 
 enabled him to lead up to and to ehcit aU the most 
 important evidence involving the question of the 
 monopoly of food, and thereby to estabhsh the 
 advantage of the principles of Free Trade generally. 
 
 Never before or since did any Blue-book so com - 
 pletely rivet pubhc attention as the Report of this 
 Committee. It was, as Sir R. Peel afterwards ac- 
 knowledged, a body of evidence that took the world 
 by surprise. Twenty thousand copies of it were struck 
 off by the Carlisle Anti-Corn Law Association ; and 
 the Council of the League republished aU the evidence 
 bearing directly on the food monopoly. The leading 
 portions of the evidence were given in all the chief 
 newspapers of the country, and formed the topic of 
 their leading articles ; and the ' Spectator ' reproduced 
 it in an abridged form. It was, moreover, the subject 
 
 ' Speeches, vol. i. p. 239, 
 
xliv POLITICAI, MEMOIR. 
 
 of discussion at lectures and public meetings in aU 
 parts of the empire. And it was reprinted in America . 
 In fact, it formed an epoch in the history of the Free 
 Trade question ; and, after passing through the phases 
 of disregard, ridicule, and angry denunciation, was 
 generally accepted as an authority by both parties in 
 the State, and was the foundation of the commercial 
 legislation that freed our statute-book from the 
 disgrace of the Corn Laws and the pernicious prin- 
 ciples of Monopoly and Protection. After its pub- 
 lication there could no longer be any confusion in 
 the public mind about the two distinct kinds of 
 taxation that, to the detriment of the revenue and 
 the misery of the people, were confounded in the 
 existing tariff : namely, taxes for Protection and 
 taxes for revenue. It was shown too clearly to be 
 misunderstood that whilst the latter were levied for 
 the general weal of the State, the former were imposed 
 for the sole purpose of benefiting private individuals ; 
 and that taxation so levied for Protection exceeded 
 the total of the public taxation of the country . 
 
 The Whig Budget of 1841 was the first legislative 
 act that showed the influence of the Report, which 
 later on was practically felt throughout the country 
 in each of the successive revisions of the tariff com - 
 menced by Sir R. Peel in 1842 ; and on the 30th of 
 April, 1811, Mr.Yilliers had the satisfaction of hearing 
 Lord J. Russell move for a Committee of the whole 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xlv 
 
 House to consider the laws aifecting the importation 
 of foreign corn in terms identical with those that in 
 the preceding years had brought down upon him 
 showers of ridicule and abuse. Lord Palmerston at 
 that time had joined the Free Trade ranks. All the 
 Parliamentary disturbance that followed this Budget 
 was entirely due to the Bread-tax question. It was 
 the Corn Laws that obliged the Ministers to appeal 
 to the country after Peel carried his vote of want of 
 confidence in the Government by a majority of one 
 on the -Ithof June, 1841. It was the Corn Laws that 
 formed the theme of the Queen's Speech on the return 
 of the Melbourne Ministry, and made the debate on 
 the address a Free Trade debate ; when Lord Mel- 
 bourne, mindful, perhaps, of his unlucky speech about 
 the mental state of those who differed from him on 
 the question of repeal, began with euphemistic can- 
 dour to acknowledge that he had on former occasions 
 been for putting oS agitation and discussion of the 
 question, but went on boldly to state that he had 
 always known that it must come ; that it was a 
 matter of time ; that the laws had been introduced 
 and supported by those who had a direct interest in 
 maintaining them ; that they were sanctioned by the 
 two Houses of Legislature, one of which was entirely, 
 and the other mainly, . composed of landowners ; 
 that it was not safe for the governing powers to be 
 open to an imputation of so popular, so plausible, so 
 
xlvi POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 specious a nature as that they had passed the Corn 
 Laws from interested motives ; and that a change in 
 the Corn Laws was necessary. 
 
 In this last conflict of the popular and landed 
 interests the Whig Ministry were defeated and the 
 Tories came into power, with Sir R. Peel at their 
 head, pledged to maintain Protection. Possessed 
 with the notion of the surpassing 'importance of lay- 
 ing the foundations of a great Conservative party,' 
 the new Minister, admitting the awful distress in the 
 country, denied that the Corn Laws were the cause 
 of it, in spite of all the arguments and all the evi- 
 dence to the contrary lying straight before him, and 
 celebrated his advent to power with the promulgation 
 of a new sliding scale — sliding from everything honest, 
 as O'Connell said — to ' meet the special burdens on 
 land,' and to ' make ourselves, as far as we can con- 
 sistently with the maintenance of a moderate price, 
 independent of a foreign supply.' ^ 
 
 This threw upon Mr. Villiers the arduous task of 
 again attacking the old question, and the wearisome 
 duty of reiterating arguments not old only because 
 they had been so completely ignored ; which must have 
 been specially trying to a man of his keenness of vision. 
 But, nevertheless, his speech of the 18th of February, 
 1842, is singularly restrained and conciliatory. The 
 roars of laughter that greeted Mr. Monckton Milnes's 
 
 ' Sir R. Peel, Speech at Tamworth, June 28, 1841. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xlvii 
 
 description of him as ' the solitary Robinson Crusoe, 
 standing on the barren rock of Corn Law repeal,' the 
 levity with which the allusions to the distress of the 
 people by the Free Traders were received, and the 
 applause that Mr. Ferrand won for every allegation of 
 the cruelty of the manufacturers, showed far better 
 than the division-list the composition of the new 
 Parhament, and the obstacles that yet stood in the 
 way of untaxed bread for the people. No wonder 
 that the people began to ponder Fox's sovereign 
 remedy for all evils, and to think that representative 
 reform must precede every other. 
 
 Sir E. Peel introduced his financial scheme in 
 April, and the struggle between the three parties into 
 which the political world was now divided became 
 closer. But the Whigs with their fixed duty, and the 
 Free Traders, adverse to fixed duties and sliding scales 
 alike, were both outnumbered by the supporters of Sir 
 Robert Peel and the sliding scale ; and with the new 
 tariff" the Income-tax became law.^ 
 
 ^ Diu'ing tlie Committee on the Customs Act of 1842 Sir R. Peel's 
 proposal to remove the prohibition on foreign cattle by substituting a 
 ' moderate duty ' of 11. per head met witb strong opposition. Moreover, 
 the Government, though tbis part of the new tariff v^as calculated to 
 greatly benefit the people, did not urge it as a means to meet the prevail- 
 ing distress. Mr. Villiers, therefore, moved that a nominal duty of Is. 
 should be substituted for the proposed duty of II. In a powerful but 
 brief speech he insisted on the right of the people to have their trade in 
 food free ; and adduced statistical and medical evidence showing that the 
 famished condition of the working classes was due to an inadequate supply 
 of proper nourishment. 
 
 VOL. I. C 
 
xlviii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 The incongruity of tlie Income-tax under the 
 existing circumstances Mr. YiUiers was prompt to 
 point out. In throwing a fresh burden of 4,000,000?. 
 on an already impoverished people, this tax could but 
 be calculated to deepen still further the distress in the 
 country by causing a diminution in the rate of wages, 
 and adding to the already enormous number of 
 unemployed workmen. In one district alone of 
 Wolverhampton, out of 134 blast furnaces, each em- 
 ploying 160 persons, 62 were idle in the month of 
 July, thus leaving 10,000 men without work. The 
 majority of the iron mills of the neighbourhood, 
 employing from 200 or 300 hands each, had stopped. 
 The j apanned trade was so depressed that one master 
 was then working for 50 per cent, less than he 
 had done for three years previously. Honest capable 
 workmen, driven by sheer lack of employment to 
 the workhouse, were spending their days in breaking 
 stones ; and a jeweller of the town deposed to the 
 fact that mothers of families were forced to sell — they 
 did not attempt to pavm, for they had no hope of ever 
 being able to redeem them — their wedding-rings to get 
 food for their children. The state of distress at Wol- 
 verhampton was but an instance of what was to be 
 found all over the country. There was no exagge- 
 ration in the lines of Ebenezer Elliott, the ' Corn 
 Law Rhymer.' He only described what he saw, and 
 hence his great influence in the movement, especially 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xllx 
 
 amongst the poor. He stirred multitudes with a 
 picture like this : — 
 
 Child, is thy father dead ? 
 Father is gone ! 
 Why did they tax his bread ? 
 God's will be done ! 
 Mother has sold her bed ; 
 Better to die than wed ! 
 Where shall she lay her head ? 
 Home we have none. 
 
 Father clamm'd thrice a week — 
 
 God's will be done ! 
 
 Long for work did he seek ; 
 
 Work he found none. 
 
 Tears on his hollow cheek 
 
 Told what no tongue could speak 
 
 Why did his master break ? 
 
 God's will be done ! 
 
 Doctor said air was best — 
 Food we had none ; 
 Father, with panting breast. 
 Groaned to be gone ; 
 Now he is with the blest — 
 Mother says death is best ! 
 We have no place of rest — 
 Yes, ye have one ! 
 
 But with their prolonged sufferings the people 
 began to lose faith in God as well as trust in man. 
 ' Talk to us no more about thy Goddle Mighty,' was 
 the wild outburst of the Leicester artisan recorded by 
 Thomas Cooper ^ as typical of the new spirit that was 
 
 ' lAfe of Tliomas Cooper. Written by Hiimelf. 
 C2 
 
lii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 ing of 1843 was of very great importance to the 
 cause of Repeal and Free Trade generally. From 
 information that reached him, Mr. Cobden did not 
 anticipate it without apprehension, though all pre- 
 cautions had been taken to guard against a breach of 
 the peace. He was most anxious to be supported by 
 the Parliamentary leader of Free Trade in attacking 
 this stronghold of Conservatism, where everything 
 that the cream of Protection, represented by the 
 landed, agricultural, and clerical interests of the 
 neighbourhood, could effect to defeat the object of 
 the League had been effected. And it was well that 
 he was so supported. The agitation which had been 
 carried on by the Tories previously throughout the 
 surrounding country in anticipation of the meeting 
 had excited and irritated the agricultural population 
 to such a degree that at first the farmers were appealed 
 to by the popular orator with as little avaU. as their 
 representatives in another place had been two months 
 previously, when Mr. Cobden was obliged, by the 
 cock-crowing, the hissing, and the general clamour, 
 to defer addressing the House of Commons till the 
 fifth night of the debate on Mr. VUliers's motion. Mr. 
 ViUiers had a very different reception. He was as 
 popular at Colchester as he had been at Penenden 
 Heath on the 29th of June. And his raillery and 
 satire told as much amongst the farmers against Sir 
 J. Tyrell, as they had with the assembly at Penen- 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIK. liii 
 
 den against Mr. Osborn. From tlie first his audience 
 were with' him ; he completely carried them along 
 with him, and finally won their vote. And fii-om 
 that day to this the Colchester meeting has been 
 ranked as one of the greatest triumphs of Free Trade 
 principles with the agricultural class. 
 
 The Session of 1844 has been treated recently, as 
 it was in some quarters at the time, as one fruitless to 
 the cause of Repeal ; and the debate on Mr. Villiers's 
 motion as ' a very hollow performance.' Those in 
 the thick of the struggle viewed it otherwise. Better 
 weather, and consequently better harvests and im- 
 proved trade, had somewhat relieved the public mind 
 fi-om the pressing fear of want ; and the landed 
 interest, reassured by Ministerial utterances, took com- 
 fort in the thought that there would be no interfer- 
 ence with their monopoly that year at least. Never- 
 theless Repeal gained ground, and the debate was 
 not a barren one because the leading Whigs osten- 
 tatiously absented themselves from the House on 
 the second night. The conviction of the Prime 
 Minister that the existing legislation was merely 
 empirical, or rather provisional, and depended for its 
 continuance on the accidents of our climate, was in 
 no way concealed, though it may have been some- 
 what confused by the Ministerial declaration that 
 the Government had no intention of altering the 
 Corn Laws of 1842, and that it was a matter of duty 
 
liv POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 to oppose the motion for Repeal. Onlookers who 
 knew how to read between the lines were riot deceived 
 by these ' voces in vulgum ambiguas ' ; and the organ of 
 the League, reviewing the Parliamentary labours of Mr. 
 Yilliers for the year, j ustly estimated the real state of 
 affairs : — ' Since Mr. Villiers first began to raise Anti- 
 Corn Law debates in the House of Commons, he has 
 entered on the third cycle in the history of the question. 
 He commenced when counteracted by the effects of 
 abundant harvests and the influence of abundant 
 ignorance — when agriculturists were contemptuously 
 indifferent, commercialists sufficiently supine, and, 
 consequently, the House of Commons utterly apathetic. 
 He continued when winter had descended on our 
 national affairs ; when the wolf howled at the national 
 door ; when country gentlemen became alarmed, and 
 the entire community interested. He perseveres now 
 that spring appears again, and there is the proba- 
 bility of a short-lived summer of prosperity ; but he 
 continues it with the knowledge that there is not a 
 man within the compass of Great Britain capable of 
 putting two ideas together, be he Cabinet' Minister, 
 landed proprietor, merchant, manufacturer, or hand- 
 worker, who does not feel that the Corn Laws but 
 wait the next " fall of the leaf," in order to be blown 
 into the gulf of oblivion, there to rot with the things 
 that were.' ^ 
 
 1 ' The League/ Auguet 10, 1844. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIE. Iv 
 
 Tru sting as the Ministers did for the prevalence 
 of fair weather and good harvests to enable them to 
 retail! their influence with the landed interest by the 
 continuance of the Corn Laws, there seemed every 
 prospect of their enjoying that advantage in the 
 summer of 1845 ; and some thought it a bad augury 
 for Mr. Villiers that he would have to contend against 
 a false sense of security amongst the people, as well as 
 the active opposition of the Whig and Tory landed 
 interest, when he sought Repeal in June. But the 
 end of his long struggle with Monopoly was nearer 
 than it seemed. Slowly and steadily a change had 
 come over the leaders of the two great parties since 
 he first undertook to lead the apparently forlorn 
 hope of Free Trade in the House of Commons in 
 1838. Step by step Protection with its fallacies had 
 retreated before the advance of Free Trade princi- 
 ples, never regaining an inch of ground it had once 
 been compelled to concede to the steady progress 
 of its antagonist. Parliamentary Protectionist ma- 
 jorities diminished, while Free Trade minorities in- 
 creased. The people, from a dull, apathetic igno- 
 rance as to their true interests, had been awakened 
 to a keen, intelligent appreciation of the necessary 
 means to secure them. Even Hodge himself was 
 alive to the situation, and could indulge in grim 
 humour when the importunity of the Monopolist be- 
 came too much for him, ' I be protected and I be 
 
Ivi POLITICAL MEMOIB. 
 
 starving,' ^ was an argument the most specious fallacy- 
 could not withstand. Each change in the tariff that 
 marked the financial policy of 1842 was a blow to the 
 Corn Laws and a gain to the cause of Repeal. And 
 when, on the 10th of June, 1845, Mr. VUliers brought 
 forward his eighth and last motion for Repeal, on 
 every side he found reason for encouragement. He 
 could cite the statements of Sir J. Graham and Colonel 
 Wood during the Session as so many declarations 
 in favour of the principles he upheld ; he saw Lord 
 J. Russell by his side ; and heard Sir Robert Peel 
 say that the sound policy he and his colleagues had 
 pursued and meant to pursue was no other than the 
 establishment of principles embodying the gradual 
 abatement of purely Protective duties ; whilst Sir J. 
 Graham could discover little to advance against the 
 motion than that it was too precipitate. And whereas 
 in 1842 a majority of 303 had been against his motion 
 for total and immediate Repeal, and the proportion of 
 Monopolists to Free Traders was seventeen to four, 
 he now found that the majority was only 132, the 
 proportion of Monopolists to Free Traders having 
 been reduced by one half 
 
 And this was in the face of sunshine, with 
 every prospect of a fine harvest ! It was not the 
 rain that rained away the Corn Laws in 184&. It 
 hastened the great change that had long been pre- 
 
 ' Mr. Bright, Speech in the House of Commons^ Feb. 1846, 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ivii 
 
 paring, because it brought famine in its train at a 
 time when no living statesman could be found wbo 
 would attempt to grapple with it if bis bands were 
 bound witb tbe fetters of Monopoly. But tbe near 
 doom of the Corn Laws was felt under the brilliant 
 sunshine of June, with no one dreaming of potato- 
 disease or famine ; and was due pre-eminently to the 
 unanswerable arguments and irresistible eloquence 
 with which Session after Session a great economical 
 principle had been enforced on the Legislature by 
 men deeply convinced of its truth from the outset of 
 their political career, as Lord Palmerston reminded 
 Sir R. Peel when, in the first moment of his professed 
 conversion to Repeal, the Prime Minister with strange 
 persistency still pretended that the leaders of Free 
 Trade had rested their advocacy of Repeal on mere 
 abstract principles and a priori arguments, whereas 
 the change in his conduct was justified by the ex- 
 perience of the three previous years and his observa- 
 tion of the working of the tariff of 1842. 
 
 Inveterate Protectionists talked of the ' children 
 of panic,' and ' sudden conversions,' and ' apostacy,' 
 and 'outraged public opinion,' when the 'powerful 
 Minister' went openly against them, and ranged 
 himself on the popular side. But of sudden con- 
 versions there were none in high places. The 
 measure that in 1846, from January to June, agitated 
 the whole country ought not to have taken any poll- 
 
Iviii POLITICAL MEMOIB. 
 
 tician by surprise. It belongs to the irony of politics 
 tbat powerful Ministers should often run counter to 
 the traditions of party, and give effect to the policy 
 of the far-seeing statesmen they have conspicuously 
 opposed. Disraeli carried Household Suffrage, and 
 the Duke of Wellington Catholic Emancipation ; it 
 was really no more strange that Peel should over- 
 throw Protection — he had certamly previously helped 
 to undermine it, though all his followers were not, 
 perhaps, wide awake during the process. 
 
 Like three great landmarks in the Free Trade 
 movement stand out the Committee of 1840, the 
 tariff of 1842, and the Act of 1846, which effectually 
 blotted the Corn Laws out of the statute-book — the 
 one leading to the other ; and all are found to follow 
 from and to be linked together by the years of 
 patient exposition and consistent advocacy of the 
 principles they finally established by a handful of 
 sagacious, earnest men in Parliament, led by Mr. 
 VUliers, and supported from without by the greatest 
 combination of a law-abiding people against unjust 
 legislation that this century or any preceding had 
 witnessed, under the guidance of Richard Cobden. 
 
 The historian of the League has pointed out that 
 in the close argument and general arrangement of his 
 speech announcing his conviction of the necessity for 
 a new commercial policy. Sir R. Peel adopted the 
 speeches of Mr. VUliers as his model. Three days 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. lix 
 
 after the virtual repeal of tlie Corn Laws had received 
 the royal assent, and the policy that Sir R. Peel had 
 been returned in 1841 to oppose had through his 
 instrumentality become an established fact, the Go- 
 vernment was defeated on the Coercion Bill for 
 Ireland. When he announced his resignation the 
 Prime Mmister disclaimed for himself and his party 
 the sole merit of the great Free Trade measure. It 
 seems somethmg more than a comcidence that, on 
 this occasion, after he had made the often-quoted 
 allusion to Cobden, with his last words he should 
 enforce the justice of Repeal above all other considera- 
 tions ; and so — echoing the plea that from 1838 
 onwards Mr. Yilliers had never allowed his hearers 
 to forget amidst all the different phases of the dis- 
 cussion and all the various contentions of party 
 prejudice and class interests — should on the break-up 
 of his party expressly derive comfort from the 
 thought that he would be remembered with good-will 
 by ' those whose lot it is to labour, and to earn then- 
 daily bread by the sweat of their brow, when they 
 shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant 
 and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer 
 leavened by a sense of injuMice.'' 
 
 In the first blush of surprise and gladness at Sir R. 
 Peel's open renunciation of Protection, public gratitude 
 was not all absorbed by the Minister whose strong 
 hand was forcing the last ward of the lock that kept 
 
Ix POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 their bread from the people. When Mr. Villiers — his 
 Amendment for immediate Repeal haviag been defeated 
 — gave the weight of his cordial support to Sir R. Peel 
 in his speech of the 27th of February, the press, rejoic- 
 ing over the ' great and glorious alteration of our com- 
 mercial code ' in the course ' of achievement through 
 the intervention of the Premier and the indomitable 
 struggles of the public will,' was not forgetful of the 
 recognition that was due to Mr. ViUiers. And later, 
 when the ' victory of reason and the triumph of 
 justice' was finally achieved, the same spirit, free 
 from the acrimony or adulation of partisanship, was 
 manifested in the tribute simultaneously rendered in 
 the following words to the five men then in the full 
 enjoyment of general attention and esteem: — 
 
 ' Nor can our prominent and distinguished legis- 
 lators escape the most enviable fame which can be 
 acquired by public servants, by public benefactors. 
 Sir R. Peel, as having possessed the moral heroism 
 to sacrifice personal ties, party power, and the most 
 fostered policy of a career, because he recognized the 
 benefits which would thereby result to the nation ; 
 Lord J. Russell, as having, irrespective of all other 
 considerations, first shown that opinions might be 
 changed with consistency ; Mr. Cobden and his 
 Siamese colleague, as the most untiring and earnest 
 orators for the dissemination of Free Trade principles 
 without the House; and Mr. ViUiers, as the most 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. 1x1 
 
 persevering and undaunted supporter of those prin- 
 ciples within the House — have individually and 
 collectively obtained a most enviable renown.' 
 
 Severe things have been said about the substan- 
 tial rewards that fell to the share of the leading mem- 
 bers of the Anti-Corn Law League when, its object 
 having been attained, the Association was dissolved. 
 As regards the recognition of the labours of the 
 Executive Council, including the 10,000/. voted to 
 Mr. George Wilson, there could be no question of 
 their infringing any rule of Parliamentary etiquette in 
 accepting it, because none of them were in Parliament. 
 With regard to the two chiefs of the League, Mr. 
 Bright as well as Mr. Cobden may be said to have 
 been exceptionally situated. The gift of 75,000/. — 
 wliich ultimately reached a very much larger sum — 
 was certainly a royal acknowledgment of the splendid 
 services of Mr. Cobden, and unparalleled in the his- 
 tory of national gratitude. But, as we have said, 
 Cobden's position was exceptional, and when his 
 losses came upon him, the people for whom he had 
 toiled in the best years of his life were generous in 
 their gratitude. And with respect to Mr. Bright, 
 the greatest stickler for Parliamentary proprieties 
 could hardly venture to assert that the valuable 
 library presented to him was more than a suitable 
 recognition of his distinguished labours in the cause 
 prior to his entry into the House of Commons. 
 
Ixii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 But what was strange witli regard to the final pro- 
 ceedings of the League was their omission of all public 
 recognition of their Parliamentary leader. There was 
 praise for the Premier, who ' in losing ofiice had 
 gained a country,' for Lord J. EusseU, for Mr. 
 Deacon Hume, Mr. McGregor and Mr. Porter — the 
 three important witnesses on the famous Committee 
 of 1840 — but nothing was said about Mr. Yilliers. 
 And this was resented by Free Traders generally. 
 A committee was consequently organized in London 
 to repair what was looked upon as a grave neglect. 
 But immediately Mr. Villiers saw it announced in 
 the papers he wrote to Mr. Ricardo, the chairman of 
 the committee, and begged him to dissolve it without 
 delay, since, much as he was touched by such a mark 
 of their appreciation of what he had done, he could 
 never accept a pecuniary acknowledgment of it. He 
 had given his time, and taxed his health, and en- 
 croached upon his moderate means, to secure the one 
 object that had dominated him from the commence- 
 ment of his career ; but he so shrank from the least 
 semblance of anything approaching a mercenary 
 motive that — it is an open secret, so we are free to 
 allude to it here — he never could be prevailed upon 
 to accept any sum offered to him by the League to 
 meet the personal expenditure he incurred in connec- 
 tion with the movement. ' The reward of public 
 services is public confidence, and I will accept nothing 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixiii 
 
 else,' was his characteristic reply to Mr. Ricardo ; 
 and all that he looked for was a post ia which he 
 could better serve his country than in the one he then 
 fined. 
 
 It was the knowledge of this probably that, apart 
 from other and political considerations, made Cobden 
 anxious that Ministerial recognition should be secured 
 for his friend. ' But why do I write to you ? ' he 
 asked Mr. Parkes in a letter dated from Llangollen, 
 July 1846 ; 'why, to call to mind the midnight 
 conversation we had together on the Carlton Terrace, 
 when we talked of Yilliers. You said you knew I 
 need not trouble myself about him — that he would 
 be well cared for whether Peel or Lord John was in 
 power. Is it so ? He has been offered a post 
 which, I suppose, it was known he could not with 
 propriety take.^ But is there nothing that he could 
 with advantage to himself and credit to your party 
 accept ? Where there is a will there is a way. I 
 think now, as we both thought then, that an embassy, 
 from which he would not be likely to be removed by 
 any probable change of Government, would suit him, 
 and be most gratifying to the Free Traders. ... If I 
 were Lord John, I would not sleep without first 
 having found an appointment for Villiers, the higher 
 
 * Lord John Russell had offered Mr. Villiers the Vice-Presidentship 
 of the Board of Trade — Lord Clarendon, Mr. ViUiers's brother, having 
 accepted the Presidentship. When he made the offer, Lord John Russell 
 was in a considerable minority in the House of Oonunons. 
 
 d 
 
Ixiv POLITICAL MEMOIE, 
 
 the better. The Free Traders have felt confident 
 that he would be rewarded at the hands of the next 
 Government for his services to the cause. To pass 
 him over under any plea will give a colouring to the 
 rumours that the Whigs are more disposed to con- 
 ciliate the Protectionists than to satisfy the Free 
 Traders. If there be any truth in the report, which 
 I don't believe, the party will drive to their doom ia 
 one Session. To return to the embassy. If YOliers 
 were appointed to any court where Protectionist 
 principles are in the ascendant (and where are they 
 not so, excepting Switzerland and Tuscany ?) it would 
 be most useful iu influencing the Grovernment, it 
 would be a graceful way of promoting an honest man 
 and pronouncing on the part of our rulers to a foreign 
 nation. Now, be a good fellow for once, and tell me 
 confidentially if you think I can in any way put a 
 spoke in the wheel for VUliers. I would not ask a 
 favour of any Government to the extent of an excise- 
 man's place to serve my own brother, but I should be 
 glad to put on the screw for VUliers in any way possible. 
 He is not a party man, and therefore not likely to 
 promote his own interests. But, as a man of the 
 people myself, I do feel nettled that the only man of 
 his class who from the first has been true to our 
 cause should be neglected by the Government which 
 has come into power upon the wreck of parties occa- 
 sioned by our popular movement.' 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. IxV 
 
 Cobden and the Free Traders evidently did not 
 realize the odium Mr. Villiers had incurred by his 
 ' disloyalty ' to the traditions of his party, and the 
 independent course he had from the first assumed. 
 The above extract was forwarded to Lord John 
 Eussell by Mr. Parkes, who wrote very frankly to 
 the Prime Minister on the occasion, and said a propos 
 of the enclosure : — 
 
 ' Now Cobden's feelings are shared by many ex- 
 cellent members of the House of Commons, and by 
 all the leading Free Traders of the English and Scotch 
 towns. It is a common honesty and generosity which 
 originate this interest in Yilliers, and it does honour 
 to Cobden especially. I have only shown his letter 
 (within extracted) to Warburton, who concurs with 
 me that I should make it known to you. Villiers, I 
 have reason to know from himself, was well satisfied 
 with his recent communication with you, but plainly 
 he considers himself unfortunately situated in his 
 present miserable office,^ and also in a degree a sacri- 
 fice to the League, and without that reward which 
 his services in the Free Trade question and his 
 position as a public man entitle him to expect. . . . 
 Receiving Cobden's letter, I rather write to you in 
 justice more than friendship towards VUliers, though 
 I have a great friendship for him. Also, I apprehend 
 that if Villiers, the (and disinterested) leader of the 
 
 ' That of Examiner in the Court of Chancery. 
 
 da 
 
xlvi POLITICAL MEMOIli. 
 
 Free Trade question, in Parliament, is left where he 
 is, it will be a scandal to your Administration, and I 
 think it is of great importance that no impression 
 against the Government should exist on ViUiers's 
 account, when it is not difficult to avoid such an 
 evil.' 
 
 Lord J. Russell wrote back to the eflfect that he 
 agreed that anything that could be done for Mr. 
 VUliers ought to be done, and that he would try if 
 anything could be found abroad. Cobden, on being 
 informed of this correspondence, wrote to Mr. Parkes 
 on the subject again : — 
 
 ' One point occurs to me in reading your narrative. 
 Contrive to let Lord John know that you staved off 
 some leading Lancashire men from going on a deputa- 
 tion to press VUhers's claim upon him, and that they 
 were for acting quite unconnected with me. That 
 would show him the strong interest felt about him in 
 the North. . . . Now for our friend Villiers, I agree 
 with you that he wUl never make an administrator, if 
 by that we mean a House of Commons partisan. He 
 is too honest, too sensitive, too much like an unbroken 
 high-spirited steed. . . . The more I think of it, the 
 more do I lean to the idea of a foreign embassy for 
 him. ... I know him weU, have watched and probed 
 him for eight years, and am ready to swear by him as 
 a true man. I love and venerate him more than he 
 is aware of. I have felt for him what I could not 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIE. Ixvii 
 
 express, because my esteem lias grown out of his 
 noble self-denial under trials to which I could not 
 allude without touching a too secret chord. I have 
 trod upon his heels, nay, almost trampled him. down, 
 in a race where he was once the sole man on the 
 course. When I came into the House, I got the 
 public ear and the press (which he never had as he 
 deserved). I took the position of the Free Trader. I 
 watched him then ; there was no rivalry, no jealousy, 
 no repiaing ; his sole object was to see his principles 
 triumph. He was willing to stand aside and cheer me 
 on to the winning goal ; his conduct was not merely 
 noble, it was godlike. ... I verily believe that I have 
 suffered more on account of the slights and mortifi- 
 cations he has experienced than he has done. The 
 purity of his motives has prevented him from seeing 
 or feeling it himself. I wish he knew how long and 
 anxiously the leading Leaguers discussed the subject of 
 a testimonial to him and Bright jointly with myself, 
 and how anxious they were not to expose him to the 
 invidious neglect of singling me out personally for all 
 the honours. I was as anxious as any of them that he 
 should not be overlooked, and therefore I heard what 
 passed. They talked of including three in a joint 
 subscription. Well, it was then discussed how should 
 the money be divided. Nobody could say. Next it 
 was discussed whether as much money could be 
 collected for the three as for me individually. And 
 
Ixviii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 it was agreed that it could not, for I need not tell 
 you that / urate all parties, and that our excellent, 
 thorough-going friend Bright has a host of oppo- 
 nents amongst the thin-skinned moneyed people. 
 Then it was proposed to put forth a sheet, ruled with 
 three columns, for subscriptions to each separately ; 
 a few minutes' discussion made every man shrink 
 from such a dangerous test of public feeling. Every 
 discussion ended in the unanimous opinion that only 
 one incarnation of the Free Trade principle could be 
 adopted. I felt most keenly how much this must 
 annoy Yilliers. Since I have been here, I have 
 written to him, to explain fuUy what my sacrifices 
 had been. Now the leading men in Manchester 
 knew of my position ; that I had called together half 
 a score of them last August and resolved to abandon 
 my public position ; that nothing but the potato-rot 
 prevented my resigning my post ; that the moneyed 
 men in Manchester knew all this, and hence their zeal 
 to serve me in a pecuniary way. I told him everything, 
 for I thought it would at least mitigate the sting. 
 He has returned me a noble answer just like himself. 
 I could cry over it, and kiss the hand that penned it. 
 But now between ourselves we will have a substantial 
 and durable memorial for him yet — ay, as durable, if 
 possible, as the good he has done for mankind, and 
 as bright and pure and beautiful, if possible, as his 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixix 
 
 motives; and my name shall stand at the head of 
 
 the list.'i 
 
 Events proved that Cobden under-estimated the 
 place Mr. VUliers held in the regard of the general 
 body of Free Traders, whatever may have been the 
 case with the League, as Mr. Parkes over-estimated 
 the generosity of Governments. 
 
 At the General Election of 1847, South Lancashire, 
 showing him the highest proof of their esteem, chose 
 Mr. ViUiers, still at his old post of Examiner in the 
 Court of Chancery, for their representative, and sought 
 to win him from his allegiance to Wolverhampton by 
 the rare honour their unsolicited confidence would 
 confer upon him. From a Parliamentary point of view, 
 above all, the temptation in the face of official neglect^ 
 was a dazzHng one ; but Mr. ViUiers, deeply as he felt 
 the generous recognition of his labours by the South 
 Lancashire constituency, gave afreshproof of his dis- 
 interestedness, and remained faithful to the borough 
 that had trusted him when 'his singular gifts and 
 devotion to the popular cause were little known 
 beyond a small circle of discerning men, and had 
 not been proved by the severe test of political life. 
 
 ' This is the letter that was alluded to by Lord GraiiTille, at the un- 
 veiling of the statue of Mr. ViUiers in Wolverhampton in 1879. 
 
 ''■ Lord J. Russell, it is true, had offered Mr. Villiers the Governorship 
 of Bombay in 1846, after his unfortunate proposal of the Vice-President- 
 ship of the Board of Trade, but the East India Company refused to con- 
 firm the appointment because Mr. Villiers had been a prominent member 
 of the League. 
 
IxX POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 From 1846 to 1850 the policy of Free Trade was 
 working and developing so successfully that there was 
 no need for the Free Traders to take any action with 
 regard to the principles estabhshed on the repeal of the 
 Corn Laws. Repeated attempts were made by the Pro- 
 tectionists to disturb it on the ground of agricultural 
 distress as the necessary effect of Free Trade, and to 
 establish the claims of agriculturists to compensation ; 
 but so satisfied were the leaders of Free Trade of the 
 hold their principles had taken on the country and 
 of the firmness of Sir R. Peel — who boldly met Mr. 
 Disraeli's axiomatic contention that hostile tariffs can 
 only be encountered by countervailing duties with the 
 declaration that the best way to compete with hostile 
 tariffs is to encourage fi-ee imports — that they took 
 little part ia the debates raised by the Protectionists 
 under the leadership of Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 By 1850, however, the pertinacity of Mr. Disraeli's 
 party in their claims for the agriculturists threatened 
 to become so inconvenient and unsettling to the 
 country that in January of that year Lord J. Russell 
 asked Mr. ViUiers to move the Address in the House 
 of Commons, and set the country and foreign Govern- 
 ments at ease by showing the entire agreement 
 between the Whig Grovernment and the Free Traders, 
 and their acceptance of Free Trade policy as an irre- 
 vocable act. And so much importance did Lord J. 
 Russell attach to Mr. Yilliers's co-operation in this 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxi 
 
 matter, that -when Mr. Villiers excixsed himself from 
 the task on the ground of being only a borough 
 member, and therefore disqualified according to pre- 
 cedent from moving the Address, Lord J. Russell told 
 him that by the choice of South Lancashire in 1847 
 he was virtually a county member, and pressed the 
 matter with such importunity that Mr. Villiers yielded 
 to his wish. With the unanswerable argument of fact 
 he demonstrated that there was no cause for any- 
 thing but satisfaction with the results of Free Trade, 
 and that it would be most injurious to the welfare of 
 the country to take one backward step or to allow 
 any halt in the commercial policy we were then 
 pursuing. 
 
 In 1852, Lord Derby, on assuming office, with 
 Mr. Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer, caused 
 fresh uneasiness among Free Traders by his openly 
 avowed intention to reconsider the whole question 
 of Protection, and desire for a fixed duty on corn. 
 And Mr. Disraeli's mystifying allusions to ' remedial 
 measures ' to redress the grievances of the agricultural 
 interest only tended to increase the anxiety produced 
 by the Prime Minister's candid declaration. 
 
 On the motion for Supply, therefore, Mr. Villiers 
 
 — the stormy petrel of Protection, as Mr. Disraeli 
 
 called him — closely watching the current of affairs, 
 
 pressed the Government for a distinct statement of the 
 
 policy they meant to pursue with regard to foreign 
 
Ixxii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 commerce, especially that branch of it engaged in the 
 supply of food for the people. The question really 
 was evaded ; though the design of the Government 
 to gain time and delay an appeal to the country 
 as long as they could, with a view ultimately to 
 reverse the policy of 1846, was clearly manifested. 
 Mr. Disraeli in his reply repeatedly asserted that it 
 was the intention of the Government to consider the 
 grievances of the agricultural interest. He even 
 went so far as to say that it would be their duty to 
 redress the grievances of that * great prodiictive inte- 
 rest,' as he termed it, and to propose those measures 
 which in their opinion were best calculated to attain 
 that object. But after the dissolution in July, when 
 the new Parliament met in November, the final 
 blow was dealt to Protection. For then it was that 
 Mr. VUliers, consistent to the end, brought forward 
 his famous Resolutions pledging the Legislature to 
 accept explicitly the Act of 1846 as a ' wise, just, 
 and beneficial measure.' With logical force he sup- 
 ported the well-balanced Resolutions, cai'efully fi:amed 
 not only to bind the Government to a Free Trade 
 pohcy, but also to put an end once for all to the 
 perpetual fidgeting and claim for ' compensation to 
 the agricultural interest ' with which the country was 
 harassed by the Monopolists ; who, whilst they could 
 not, in the face of facts patent to all, deny the un- 
 paralleled prosperity traceable in a great measure to 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxui 
 
 Free Trade, endeavoured to maintain that it was at 
 tlie cost of the agriculturists, and that therefore com- 
 pensation was due to them on the part of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The intense aversion of the Protectionists to the 
 Resolution was shown more than anything else hy 
 Mr. Disraeli's bitter denunciation of ' the three odious 
 epithets.' But, prompted by his genuine regard, 
 manifested more than once in the heat of Repeal 
 debates, for Mr. Villiers, whose consistent adherence 
 to his early principles had a special attraction for him, 
 Mr. Disraeli made his Amendment the occasion of one 
 of the warmest tributes of admiration he ever paid to 
 a pohtical adversary : — 
 
 ' There is one person in this House who has been 
 constant from the beginning, and has a right to make 
 the speech he made to-night, and that is the hon. 
 Member for Wolverhampton. I have sat in this 
 House many years with the hon. and learned gentle- 
 man, and I had the honour and gratification of his 
 acquaintance for some years before either of us, I 
 dare say, thought of having a seat in this House. 
 There are two qualities which I have ever observed 
 in him — ^precision of thought and concinnity of ex- 
 pression ; and that is the reason why I do not believe 
 he is the author of the Resolutions which he has 
 brought forward. Whatever may be the fault of 
 those Resolutions, I find no fault with his speech. 
 
Ixxiv POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 His speecli is the same he has always made. I make 
 the observation without any feeling that approaches 
 to a sneer. I may say that he may look back with 
 proud self-complacency to the time when I remember 
 him sitting on almost the last bench on this side of 
 the House, and bringing forward, with the command 
 of a master of the subject, never omitting a single 
 point, and against all the prejudices of his audience, 
 the question of the Corn Laws. There were no 
 cheers then from the followers of Sir Robert Peel. 
 There were no enthusiastic adherents then in a 
 defunct Whig Ministry. On the contrary, the right 
 hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle ^ came forward 
 and threw his broad shield over the territorial interest 
 of England ; and anybody but the hon. and learned 
 Member for Wolverhampton would have sunk in the 
 unequal fray. I honour, respect, and admire him ; 
 but I cannot agree to his Resolutions.' 
 
 If so much could be allowed by an opponent, it 
 would have been more than surprising if Mr. VHliers's 
 own party had been wanting in loyalty to their chief 
 at such a moment. Before Lord Palmerston, in his 
 anxiety to avoid an immediate defeat of the Ministry, 
 had (to the surprise and regret of Whigs and 
 Liberals alike) moved his Amendment which called 
 forth Mr. Milner Gibson and Cobden in warm sup- 
 port of their leader, Mr. Bright rose up and forcibly 
 
 ' Sir James Graham. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. IxxV 
 
 pointed out the striking inconsistency the House 
 would be guilty of, when giving its final sanction 
 to the great principles of a national Free Trade 
 policy, if it turned from the advice of the statesman 
 who at great personal sacrifices had for fifteen years 
 led the question in Parliament, to submit to the 
 dictation of its most vehement antagonist : — 
 
 ' My hon. friend^ could with perfect honesty say 
 that he could not be actuated by factious motives in 
 bringing this subject forward, for he brought it for- 
 ward fifteen years ago, and probably no public man 
 sufi'ered more in his political associations than my 
 hon. friend sufi'ered by his undeviating advocacy of 
 what to him, at least, seemed a great and sacred 
 question. My hon. friend is, therefore, precisely 
 the man to bring this question forward ; and every 
 person must admit that he is harmonious in the posi- 
 tion he occupies to-night, when measured by the 
 position he always occupied on this question. . . . 
 Now, when Parliament is going to pronounce its final 
 verdict on the question of Free Trade, I should have 
 thought that my hon. fi^iend, who for fifteen years 
 had been the consistent leader of the Free Trade 
 question in Parliament, should be the person to draw 
 up the terms of that verdict, and not one like the 
 right hon. gentleman, who has been a Protectionist 
 during the whole period of his career. ... If claims 
 
 1 Mr. Villiers. 
 
Ixxvi POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 are to be considered and advice to be taken, surely 
 the advice and recommendation of the long- devoted 
 friend of the question should be taken ia preference to 
 those of the right hon. gentleman the ChanceUor of 
 the Exchequer.' 
 
 At the close of the debate, and after much unreal 
 talk about the impolicy of humiliating ' recent con- 
 verts ' and such like, the country was pledged to 
 maintaia and develop for the future a Free Trade 
 policy ; but by the unfortunate iatervention of Lord 
 Palmerston the verdict of the Legislature on the 
 question that, ever since 1815, had kept the country 
 in a chronic state of discontent and distress, whilst 
 gaining nothing for its prospective utility, was robbed 
 of its retrospective force ; and the completeness of a 
 great national decision was sacrificed to the sensitive 
 feelings of a minority whose defeat would lose its 
 sting if their own cherished principles were not super- 
 seded by others that were wise, just, and beneficial. 
 
 Almost immediately after the conclusion of the 
 debate Lord Derby resigned. Mr. Villiers then 
 joined Lord Aberdeen's Coalition Ministry as Judge 
 Advocate- General, and was re-elected without opposi- 
 tion for Wolverhampton. 
 
 In considering Mr. Villiers' s political career in 
 connection with the great commercial revolution with 
 which his name is most widely associated, it is impos - 
 sible not to be struck with the penetration and sagacity 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxvii 
 
 that made Mm seem before his time in the almost 
 iatuitive clearness with which he anticipated other 
 legislators both in perceiving the cause of a gigantic 
 evil and prescribing the sole remedy that could be 
 efficaciously applied to it. This same far-seeing 
 appreciation of popular necessities was manifest in 
 his action with regard to the licensing system, after 
 his labours for Free Trade were over ; as it had been 
 before they may be said to have begun, when he 
 forwarded another great measure for the welfare of 
 the people, and in compliance with Rowland Hill's 
 wish, brought the scheme of postal reform before the 
 Government ; and when, after repeated rebuffs, a 
 Committee of the House of Commons on the question 
 was finally secured by the persevering author of the 
 measure, he, at his request, represented Mr. HUl, and 
 took charge of the scheme in the Committee. This 
 was in 1837. 
 
 On the licensing question, as on the Corn Laws, 
 he ran counter to the prejudices of great vested 
 interests. This was in 1853-54. He was elected 
 chairman of the Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons on Public-houses, appointed at the insti- 
 gation of the late Mr. William Brown, Member for 
 Liverpool, the duties of which post he discharged 
 without interruption during two Sessions, and then 
 himself drew up the Report and indicated the means 
 for coping with the evils disclosed by the evidence 
 
IxXViii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 taken before the Committee ; ^ but though more than 
 a quarter of a century has passed since he did so, 
 little has as yet been done to profit by his recom- 
 mendations. 
 
 With the exception of an intimation in 1851 on 
 the part of Lord Grey that the Grovemorship of the 
 Mauritius was open to hitn, and an equally unsuitable 
 post at the Ionian Isles, Mr, Villiers received no 
 Ministerial recognition of his public services between 
 1846 and 1853. 
 
 On the formation of the Palmerston- Russell 
 Administration in 1859, Lord Palmerston at last 
 showed Mr. Yilliers the consideration that was due 
 to him, and rendered him the act of justice that 
 ever since 1846 the country had looked for in vain, 
 by asking him to join the Grovernment in a way that 
 would be more in accordance with the position he 
 held in pubHc esteem than the office he had been per - 
 suaded to accept under Lord Aberdeen. 
 
 The ' Times,' in announcing this event, was so 
 happy in its summary of the circumstances of the 
 occasion, and so sensible of the forgetfulness of the 
 
 1 ' There were two Reports of the Committee of the House of Common s 
 on Public-houses in the year 1853-54, of which Mr. Charles Villiers in 
 his old age has the consolation of remembering that he was the chairman 
 and chief promoter. Till I read these two Blue-hooks I had no con- 
 ception of the state of the country, and I am confident that you who hear 
 me, if you will only buy and read them, will have your eyes opened to 
 that which hitherto you bays never imagined.' — Cardinal Manning, 
 Address at Newcasth-on-Tyne, Sept. 1882. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxl 
 
 XIX 
 
 events of the Free Trade movement, which even at 
 that early day was in some quarters narrowing men's 
 memories, that, far from needing excuse for referring 
 to it, we should rather be to blame if we failed to 
 quote from it the grounds of the public satisfaction 
 which, at the time, this tardy recognition of national 
 services called forth : — 
 
 ' Few people who remember the origin of the Free 
 Trade movement will refuse their hearty sanction 
 to this tardy acknowledgment of high desert. It was 
 Mr. Charles Villiers who practically originated the 
 Free Trade movement. For years before Messrs. 
 Cobden and Bright were heard of as politicians, 
 Mr. Villiers annually brought the subject before 
 Parliament. He it was who had to contend with 
 all the odium and all the ridicule of urging a pro- 
 position which in those days was looked upon much 
 in the same light as a serious motion for realizing the 
 ideas of St. Simon or Proudhon would be regarded in 
 our time. Young politicians who are just entering 
 upon the arena of public life have no idea of the 
 fierce animosities of twenty years ago. In those 
 days a Radical was still looked upon as a kind of 
 monster, and a Free Trader was to a Radical what a 
 Radical was to a truly respectable man. Still, even 
 so, there were differences. Mr. Cobbett, or even the 
 late Mr. Hume, might make proposals " subversive of 
 the throne and the altar," and it was taken that he 
 
 VOL. I, e 
 
IxxX POLITICAL MKMOIR. 
 
 was merely acting as a low vulgar fellow naturally 
 would act. It was otherwise when a man connected 
 by bii'th, education, and family with the territorial 
 classes dared to raise the standard of rebellion against 
 their views, and what they supposed to be their 
 interests. Such a man was instantly " Anathema " — 
 a traitor to his order, as well as a disturber of the public 
 peace. Now Mr. Villiers did this. As a youth he 
 began the contest which he only saw ended when he 
 had already attained middle life ; he dissociated him- 
 self from the traditions of his class ; he incurred 
 their animosity ; he sacrificed the ease and comfort of 
 his own days, and all to fight a battle in which, as it 
 turned out, he lost half the merit of success in the 
 opinion of the vulgar. Charles Villiers stood half- 
 way between Adam Smith and Richard Cobden. He 
 therefore never got the credit of the philosopher who 
 for practical purposes may be said to have originated 
 the idea, or of the popular leader who manipulated 
 the masses, and finally forced the Minister's hand. 
 Mr. Villiers' s share in the transaction was, however, 
 quite as important. To him it was mainly due that 
 the settlement of the question was carried on in an 
 orderly and Parliamentary way. One of the most un- 
 generous acts of the great Minister who at last suf- 
 fered himself to be convinced was that at the moment 
 of surrender he did no"t give his fair share of praise to 
 Mr. Villiers, who had so long brought the question 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxxi 
 
 before the House. His compliments were reserved for 
 the " unadorned eloquence " of the popular leader to 
 whom he succumbed. The Free Trade party were more 
 just/ as well as more generous. In the hour of vic- 
 tory they at least did not forget to acknowledge the 
 claims of the gentleman who had been the first to 
 advocate their cause. . . . Mr. Villiers has not sought 
 the position which has been offered to him. If the 
 addition of Mr. Cobden could have strengthened the 
 Liberal Administration, Mr. Villiers was perfectly 
 content to stand aside. . . . M'^e are glad to hear that 
 he has accepted the office, . . . and to think that he 
 has at last an opportunity for displaying those admin - 
 istrative talents which found no scope in the formal 
 duties of Judge Advocate.' 
 
 The office which Mr. Villiers accepted enjoining 
 the Ministry of Lord Palmerston was that of Pre- 
 sident of the Poor Law Board, and he may be con- 
 sidered to have been the first chief of that department 
 who was honoured with a seat in the Cabinet.^ 
 
 There could be no question that he had special 
 quahfications for this office. As already stated, he 
 had been one of the Assistant Commissioners in the 
 searching inquiry which led to the Poor Law Amend- 
 ment Act of 1834, and although his sympathies were 
 
 ^ Protably an allusion to the Lancashire return and Mr. "Rieardo's 
 committee. 
 
 " We do not take into account the previous appointment of Mr, 
 MUner'GihsoD, who held the office for a few days only. 
 
 e 2 
 
Ixxxii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 largely with the working classes, as shown by his 
 public career, his well-known economic views were a 
 sufficient guarantee that he was not likely to en- 
 courage a lax administration of the law. 
 
 But it was not only as an administrator that much 
 was expected from Mr. Villiers in his new sphere. 
 Legislation was still needed to give full effect to many 
 of the principles laid down by the Poor Law re- 
 formers of 1834, and the following reference to the 
 chief measures which were introduced and carried by 
 him show that the public had no reason to be dis- 
 appointed. 
 
 Almost immediately after his accession to office 
 he moved for the re-appointment of a Select Com- 
 mittee to inquire into the laws relating to the irre- 
 movable poor, and early in 1861 he introduced his 
 first measure for dealing with that subject. 
 
 At that time it was necessary, in order to protect 
 a poor person from the hardship of removal to the 
 parish of his settlement, even when he had spent his 
 best years in increasing the wealth of one of our 
 large centres of industry, that he should have resided 
 continuously in some particular parish for a period of 
 five years without receiving relief By his Bill Mr. 
 Villiers reduced the period of residence from five to 
 three years,'^ and extended the area of residence from 
 
 ' Reduced still further to one year, by a Bill brouo-ht in by Mr 
 Villiers iu 1866. 
 
POLITICAX MEMOIR. Ixxxiii 
 
 the restricted limit of a single parish to the whole 
 union. 
 
 This was of itself a great boon to the poor, espe- 
 cially in those large towns where the parishes were 
 very numerous, as it often happened that by shifting 
 from one house to another, even in the same street, 
 a poor person became deprived of his status of irre- 
 movabihty, and could be sent back to his place of 
 settlement, no matter how distant, or how long he 
 had ceased to be connected with it. The security 
 thus afforded against removal was not limited to the 
 English poor, but extended to the Scotch and Irish 
 of the same class also. 
 
 Another important change was that which pro- 
 vided that the parochial contributions to the common 
 fund of the union should cease to be based upon the 
 expenditure of each parish in the relief of its own poor 
 (a system which exacted the largest proportionate 
 contributions from the most pauperized parishes), 
 and be computed upon the rateable value of the entire 
 union. 
 
 A further noteworthy and humane improvement 
 was that which cast the maintenance of all lunatics 
 in asylums upon the common fund of the union, 
 and thus encouraged the sending of this unfortunate 
 class to establishments where they would be properly 
 treated, with a view to their ultimate cure. Prior 
 to this date the maintenance of pauper lunatics was 
 
Ixxxiv POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 a parocliial charge, and parishes shrank from incur- 
 ring the heavy cost of sending them to an asylum. 
 
 The next measure of importance carried by Mr. 
 Villiers was the Union Assessment Committee Act of 
 1862, which transferred from the overseers, who were 
 often extremely illiterate men,^ the duty of valuing 
 the rateable property within their parishes for the 
 purpose of assessment to the local rates. Under 
 this statute fairness and uniformity of assessment was 
 secured throughout the entu'e union, whereas under 
 the former defective and capricious system almost 
 every parish adopted a different basis of value. 
 
 In the previovis and following years we are ia- 
 debted to Mr. Villiers for two Acts which greatly 
 mitigated the hardships to which the Irish poor had 
 been previously subjected when removed to their 
 native country, and conferred upon boards of guar- 
 dians in Ireland the right of appealing against wrong- 
 ful removals. 
 
 In the winter of 1860-61 a long continuance of 
 intensely severe weather set in and occasioned a 
 great outbreak of distress in the metropolis. Nearly 
 the whole of the labourers in the London Docks and 
 on the banks of the Thames were thrown out of 
 
 ^ Mr. Villiers, in his Report to tlie Poor Law Oonunission in 1833, 
 stated that when acting as Revising Barrister in North Devon, not less 
 than a fourth of the overseers were unable to read ; and he mentions 
 one of these who was entrusted with the expenditure of rates amounting 
 to 7,000Z. per annum, 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxxv 
 
 employment, and their numbers were largely increased 
 by the necessary cessation of market-gardening 
 operations in the suburbs. It was then alleged that 
 the Poor Law had broken down, and for the purpose 
 of investigating this allegation a Select Committee 
 was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire 
 into the whole system of Poor Law relief The Com- 
 mittee, of which Mr. Villiers was appointed chairman, 
 sat during the three Sessions of 1861, 1862, and 1863, 
 and m 1864 Mr. VHliers submitted to the Committee 
 the Report prepared by him for their approval. 
 
 The Report, which was substantially adopted Ijy 
 the Committee, dealt comprehensively with the vari- 
 ous matters referred to them, and whilst strenuously 
 upholding the distinctive principles of the Act of 
 1834, and the main regulations under wliich it had 
 been administered, recommended several important 
 amendments in the law. 
 
 To most of these recommendations eifect was 
 soon given by the Legislature. 
 
 Almost immediately after the Committee made 
 their Report, Mr. Villiers succeeded in carrying a 
 Bill enabling Boards of Guardians to pension their 
 old and meritorious officers ; and by another measure 
 introduced by him in the same Session the cost of 
 the maintenance of the casual poor in the metro- 
 pohs was made a charge upon the whole metropolitan 
 ar«a. Previously the charge had to be borne by the 
 
Ixxxvi POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 ■union where the casual pauper happened to apply for 
 relief, and the result was that the unfortunate wayfarer 
 was often bandied about from union to union late 
 at night, and sometimes left to die in the streets. It 
 will be seen that this statute contains the germ of the 
 Metropolis Poor Act, passed in 1867, under which 
 various other items in connection with relief have 
 been made a metropoUtan common charge. 
 
 A measure of greater public uaterest was the 
 Union Chargeability Act, introduced by Mr. Yilliers in 
 1865, and passed in the same year. The effect of this 
 measure was to distribute the cost of the maintenance 
 of the settled poor, which up to that time had been 
 a parochial charge, over all the parishes of the union 
 in proportion to their rateable value. The Bill was 
 violently opposed by the owners of those close 
 parishes, who having no settled poor of their own, 
 resisted to the utmost the proposal that they should 
 be brought into contribution ; but apart from other 
 considerations it was shown that they were not en- 
 titled to claim any indulgence, as they derived their 
 supply of labour from the neighbouring parishes, and 
 in numerous instances had cleared their property of 
 cottages in order that there should not be on their 
 estates any resident poor who might become chargeable 
 to the rates. Labouring men were thus driven to seek 
 a dwelling in some neighbouring town or open parish, 
 and it often happened that they were compelled to 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxxvii 
 
 walk many miles to and from their daily work. In 
 his interesting speech on the second reading of this 
 measure, Mr. Villiers referred to the fact that in some 
 instances labourers were compelled to walk from forty 
 to fifty miles a week, and he quoted from the work 
 of a well-known authority ^ on agricultural matters, 
 who stated that ' in one county the farmers actually 
 provide donkeys, which their labourers ride out and 
 home to prevent their tiring themselves with walking, 
 so that they may be more vigorous at their work.' 
 
 After the Act passed there was no longer any 
 inducement for clearances of the kind referred to, and 
 landowners were encouraged, as the sequel proved, to 
 provide suitable dwellings for their labourers where 
 they would be near their employment. 
 
 By another Bill Mr. Villiers proposed to give 
 efi'ect to further recommendations of the Committee, 
 especially those for securing the religious liberty of 
 the inmates of workhouses, by allowing them to 
 attend their own places of worship, for providing 
 a creed register, and for enforcing the education of 
 pauper children in the religion to which they belong. 
 Owing, however, to the lateness of the Session the 
 greater portion of this Bill had to be abandoned, 
 although the whole of its provisions shortly after- 
 wards became law. 
 
 The circumstances, however, which were best 
 
 '■ Mr , now Sir James, Oaiid. 
 
Ixxxviii POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 calculated to test the administrative abilities of Mr. 
 VUliers were those in connection with the event 
 known as the ' Cotton Famiae.' In consequence of 
 the war between the Northern and Southern States 
 in North America, the main supply of cotton had 
 been cut off from this cotmtry, and the result was 
 that during the years 1862 and 1863 intense dis- 
 tress prevailed in Lancashire and parts of the adjoin- 
 ing counties. Thousands of operatives were thrown 
 out of work by the closing of the mills, and 
 the Poor Law was subjected to a trial to which 
 it had never been exposed before. Yet from the 
 judgment and humanity with which, under the 
 direction of Mr. Villiers, the relief was administered, 
 the people became reconciled to the law, and the 
 local authorities were enabled to carry out its pro- 
 visions without incurring the odium or resentment 
 of their distressed neighbours. 
 
 At the same time, it is obvious that Poor Laws 
 unaided and alone were not designed to meet extra- 
 ordinary and exceptional calamities like this. 
 
 Those laws are based upon the supposition that 
 in each Poor Law area there will be occupiers of 
 property capable of paying the rates required for 
 the relief of the destitute poor. But when the great 
 body of ratepayers are transformed into paupers, the 
 very fountain from which relief is derived becomes 
 dried up. And such was the case, to a considerable 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. Ixxxix 
 
 extent, in this unfortunate district. In Oldham alone 
 4,000 persons were on one day excused from the 
 payment of their rates ; and throughout the entire 
 district large numbers of ratepayers were weekly 
 added to the pauper-roll, whilst the rates were so 
 rapidly increasing as to become intolerable to those 
 who were still able to pay them. 
 
 In order to meet this emergency, Mr. Villiers, 
 adopting a principle shadowed forth in the Statute 
 of Elizabeth, introduced the Union Relief Aid Acts, 
 enabling the distressed unions to raise, by rates in 
 aid levied on all the unions in the county, the 
 means necessary to meet the expenditure when ex- 
 ceeding a given amount. By the same Acts, the 
 guardians were enabled to borrow, within certain 
 hmits, to meet the extraordinary claims upon them. 
 
 But a still more important measure was proposed 
 and carried by Mr. Villiers, known as the Pubhc 
 Works (Manufacturing Districts) Act. By this and 
 other Acts the Public Works Loan Commissioners 
 were enabled to advance sums amounting in the 
 aggregate to 1,850,000/. for the employment of the 
 distressed operatives on works of acknowledged sani- 
 tary utility. 
 
 A system of public works was thereupon organized 
 which, by affording useful -employment, effectually 
 checked the demoralization which was beginning to 
 pervade the operative classes, whilst, at the same 
 
XC POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 time, it effected a large extent of sanitary improve- 
 ment in localities where it had been long and 
 urgently needed. To give some idea of the extent 
 of these works, it may be stated that upwards of 
 300 miles of sewers were constructed, and 270 miles 
 of streets were made or improved ; extensive works 
 of water supply were executed ; parks and pleasure 
 grounds were laid out for the people ; cemeteries 
 were provided ; and extensive works of land drainage 
 were undertaken. It was estimated that the number 
 of the industrious classes who, directly and indirectly, 
 received benefit by the employment thus afforded 
 was nearly 40,000, whilst the works themselves 
 were attended with the additional advantage of check- 
 ing pauperism by enabling the guardians to offer 
 work to all able-bodied applicants for relief. 
 
 In connection with this matter of the Lancashire 
 distress it is right to add that during the whole of 
 that trying period, and whilst large sums were raised 
 by subscription for the relief of the operatives out of 
 employment, Mr. VUliers succeeded in estabhshing 
 the most cordial co-operation between the voluntary 
 Relief Committees and the guardians m administering 
 the funds that each had at their disposal. 
 
 It will thus be seen that during the seven years 
 that Mr. ViUiers presided over the Poor Law Board, 
 he not only introduced numerous amendments of 
 great importance in the law, but administered with 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xci 
 
 remarkable success the affairs of his department under 
 circumstances of unexampled pressure and difficulty. 
 
 It is no slight testimony to his prudence and tact, 
 that whereas the House of Commons in 1861 refused, 
 on an occasion when it was represented that the Poor 
 Law Board exercised a very vexatious interference 
 throughout the country, to renew the Board for more 
 than three years, the feeling had become so completely 
 changed in 1867, that an Act was passed making the 
 Board one of the permanent departments of the State. 
 
 As regards the Cotton Famine, it was a most 
 fortunate circumstance that the arduous task of deal- 
 ing with it should have devolved upon one who had 
 not only taken a leading part in raising the condition 
 of the operative classes, by freeing the manufactur- 
 ing industries of the country from aU Protective 
 duties on the first necessaries of life, and by opening 
 up the markets of the world to their productions, 
 but who was also able to grapple with theh diffi- 
 culties during a period of the gravest distress. 
 
 Much, therefore, as the Lancashire operatives owe 
 to Mr. YiUiers for his long and persistent conflict 
 with Monopoly, in which, as time went on, he was 
 joined by so many eminent men, they will doubtless 
 not forget that the measures passed for their relief 
 during the Cotton Famine must be regarded as mainly 
 his own. 
 
 It was in the department over which Mr. Villiers 
 
XCU POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 presided that the well-known electoral statistics in 
 connection with the Reform Bill of 1866 were pre- 
 pared ; and the last speech delivered by him whilst 
 in office was one almost at the close of the debate on 
 the motion of Lord Dunkellin to substitute in the 
 BiU ' rateable value ' for ' clear yearly value ' or 
 ' gross rental,' as the basis of the proposed new 
 franchise. The question was one upon which the 
 author of the Union Assessment Committee Act had 
 a special claim to be heard ; and, in a speech delivered 
 with his accustomed vigour whilst the House was 
 extremely impatient for a division, Mr. Villiers con- 
 clusively showed that the effect of the motion, if 
 carried, would be to reduce the number of the enfran- 
 chised to such an extent as to render the measure 
 worthless, and at the same time to destroy all uni- 
 formity in the franchise itself, owing to the diverse 
 modes adopted by different unions in arriving at the 
 rateable value. It was evident, however, that he 
 was arguing against a foregone conclusion, and the 
 Government, being defeated by a majority of 11, 
 immediately afterwards resigned. 
 
 Some time before ceasing to hold office the atten- 
 tion of Mr. Vilhers was directed to the state of the 
 metropolitan workhouses, many of which were old 
 and ill-arranged buUdings, without adequate accom- 
 modation for the sick or means for the isolation of 
 cases of infectious disease, and much too small for 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xciii 
 
 the demands of a rapidly increasing population ; and 
 by Ms direction special inquiries were instituted in 
 order to determine the steps which should be taken 
 to remedy the serious evils to which these defects 
 had given rise. Of the information then collected 
 he was prevented availing hiniself in consequence of 
 the resignation of the Government ; but it was largely 
 used by the succeeding President of the Poor Law 
 Board, j\Ir. Gathorne Hardy, now Lord Cranbrook, 
 in framing his Metropolitan Poor Act of the following 
 year ; a measure which, although criticized by Mr. 
 Vilhers in some of its details, was supported in its 
 main principles in a generous speech made by him 
 on its second reading. 
 
 The June of 1867 was marked by an event 
 pecuharly gratifying to Mr. Villiers. He was asked 
 to go to Salford to unveil the statue that had there 
 been erected to the memory of Cobden. He went ; 
 and after a graceful allusion to Mr. Bright, and 
 thanking the people of Salford for the pleasure their 
 request had given him, he told them the story of his 
 first acquaintance with the man whose memory they 
 were met together to honour, and with whom he 
 had been long and intimately associated in a great 
 struggle for the public good. 
 
 He told them how thirty years before he had 
 gone down to Lancashire for the sole purpose of 
 making the acquaintance of Cobden, and taking 
 
XCIV POLITICAL MEMOIR. 
 
 counsel with him — prompted thereto by the wisdom 
 and enhghtenment that he had observed in his early- 
 writings. And he told them how the impression of 
 that early intercourse had never been effaced ; for he 
 found in Cobden, though comparatively young, a man 
 who had reflected deeply upon public affairs, who 
 by travel and study had become well informed on 
 all matters passuag around him, and whose views 
 regarding the improvement of the people of this 
 country were as bold as they were benevolent.' 
 
 A little more than a decade after this Mr. Villiers's 
 own statue was unveiled at Wolverhampton. It had 
 been erected by public subscription, supported equally 
 by the Liberals and Conservatives of the borough, 
 and set up in the open air where all could see it, in 
 deference to the wish of the working classes, who ex- 
 pressed themselves strongly against its being ' walled 
 up ' in the Town Hall, when it was proposed to place 
 it there in order to preserve it from the grimy atmo- 
 sphere of the Black Country. An honour of this kmd 
 had up to that time been most rarely, if ever, accorded 
 to a living English statesman. And Lord Granville, 
 who presided at the ceremony, in his address, since 
 most aptly described as -a masterpiece of political 
 etching, adapting Pliny's praise of Titinius Capito, 
 happily emphasized the significance of the occasion 
 by showing the honour done to their devoted repre- 
 
 ' ' The Times,' June 28, 1867, VUliers upon Cobden. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. XCV 
 
 sentative reflected on the loyal constituents who ren- 
 dered it. ' Neqne enim,' he said, ' magis decorum 
 et insigne est statuam in foro populi Romani habere 
 quam ponere.' 
 
 The period selected for paying this tribute to the 
 public labours of Mr. Villiers was certainly not 
 inopportune, as more than thirty years had elapsed 
 since the iaauguration of the policy for which he had 
 striven under the most discouraging circumstances, 
 and he could then triumphantly refer to its well- 
 established results. 
 
 The foreign trade of the country had expanded 
 to such an extent that the increase in our exports 
 and imports was no longer counted by millions but 
 by hundreds of millions. The tonnage of our ship- 
 ping had doubled. The annual value of land as 
 returned for the Income-tax showed, in spite of the 
 prediction of the Protectionists that land would be- 
 come almost worthless, an augmentation of fully one- 
 fifth. Agricultural wages had risen one-third, those 
 of the artisan class had improved at least in an equal 
 degree, and the ratio of pauperism on the popula- 
 tion had diminished quite one- half. In addition to 
 all this a general spirit of contentment and of order 
 had been induced amongst the working classes, who, 
 being better fed, better clothed, and better housed, 
 no longer showed a disposition to resort to those 
 lawless acts to which they had previously been 
 
 VOL. I. f 
 
XCVl POLITICAL MEMOIR, 
 
 tempted by a sense of injustice and tlie privation of 
 the first necessaries of life. 
 
 With the efforts to procure Commercial Treaties 
 Mr. VUliers has shown little sympathy. Together 
 with Ricardo, the late Sir R. Peel, the late Mr. New- 
 march, and the present Lord Grey, he regards them 
 as a deviation from the independent fiscal policy 
 established in 1846. It must, therefore, be a satis- 
 faction to him to see that further attempts to obtain 
 them by sacrifice on our part have been abandoned, 
 whilst, like a mighty stream ever widening and 
 deepening in its course, English Free Trade advances 
 with irresistible strength. What though its broad, 
 calm current is occasionally disturbed by the breeze 
 of some Reciprocity or Fair Trade sophism, or ruffled 
 by the bubbles of a Corn-tax fallacy ! The breeze 
 dies down ^ and the bubbles burst, leaving the people 
 to labour for their daUy bread, ' liberas fruges et 
 Cererem,' unfettered by the bonds of Protection, 
 ' because we have long ago learnt, through a painful 
 experience of a ruinous and disastrous policy, that 
 such protection is the greatest injury we could inflict 
 on the bodies whose interests we professed to have 
 in view.' ^ 
 
 And now, taking a general survey of his political 
 
 1 ' The fact is, practically speaking, Reciprocity, whateyer its merits, is 
 dead. You cannot, if you would, build up a, reciprocal system of Com- 
 mercial Treaties.' — Lord Beaconsfield, Speech in the House of Lords on 
 Lord Bateman's Motion, April 29, 1879. 
 
 ^ Mr. Gladstone, Speech during the debate on the Address, February 8, 
 1883. 
 
POLITICAL MEMOIR. xcvii 
 
 life, we find that Mr. Villiers has had the good for- 
 tune to witness the realization of all those great mea- 
 sures which formed the distinctive features of the 
 programme with which he commenced his public 
 career. For not only has its chief feature, com- 
 mercial freedom, been accomplished, but municipal 
 reform has been achieved, the law simplified and, 
 by the institution of County Courts, justice brought 
 home to every man's door, the franchise extended, 
 the protection of the ballot given to the voter, a 
 system of national education provided, and complete 
 religious equahty secured in Ireland by the dis- 
 estabhshment of the Protestant Church. 
 
 The great political events of the early part of our 
 century are fast receding into that distance whence 
 they assume to the eyes of all men their due relative 
 proportions, and whence those who have taken the 
 lead in them are estimated with a judgment that 
 cannot be biassed by the prejudices of party, nor 
 distorted by the glamour of self-interest. When in 
 the fulness of time history shall be so revealed to 
 posterity, the figure of Charles Pelham Villiers will 
 stand out from amongst his contemporaries with a 
 clearness greater even than it does now, as that of 
 the far-seeing statesman who, with rare singleness of 
 purpose, forgot himself in his zeal for the welfare 
 of the people. 
 
 February 1883. 
 
FREE TRADE SPEECHES, 
 
 I. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 15, 1838. 
 
 Mr. Villiers was first returned to Parliament for the borough of Wolver- 
 hampton on Free Trade principles, especially in opposition to the Corn 
 Laws, at the general election of 1835. In the fourth year of Lord Mel- 
 bourne's second Administration he, at the request of the most earnest mem- 
 bers of the Eeform party, first brought forward the question of the Repeal 
 of the Corn Laws in the House of Commons, March 15, 1838, in his Motion, 
 ' That the House resolve itself into a Gormnittee of the whole House for the 
 purpose of taking into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IT., c. 60, relating to 
 the importation of corn.' The Motion was rejected by 300 to 95. The 
 House would not inquire, it would scarcely even listen to the proposal for 
 inquiry, though the prospects of distress and consequent discontent of the 
 people, manifest in Chartism and Trades Unions, were increasing on account 
 of the successive bad harvests that in 1836 began to set in after the great 
 period of plenty lasting from 1832 to 1835 inclusively. 
 
 I RISE to bring under the consideration of the House 
 the Question of which I have given notice, with very 
 great anxiety, proceeding from my knowledge of the 
 interest that belongs to it, of its importance to the 
 community at large, and of my utter incompetence 
 to do it justice. Indeed, I fear that it may be asked 
 how it comes that a person of such humble preten- 
 sions as myself could bring a Question of so much 
 importance before the House. But without stopping 
 to inquire whether it is one in which the abUity of 
 
 VOL. I. B 
 
Z FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the advocate is likely to affect its success, I wUl at 
 once say that if my coming forward could be taken 
 as any criterion of my own sense of fitness for the 
 purpose, my name would not have been seen in 
 connection with it. 
 
 The real matter, however, is not what busmess 
 I have to bring the Question forward, but why the 
 intelligent portion of the manufacturing and commer- 
 cial community deem it essential that it should be 
 brought forward ; why it is that our fellow-subjects, 
 to whom the Legislature has lately extended the 
 Elective Franchise, should expect that those whom 
 they depute to this House should take the earliest 
 occasion, and every occasion, to bring under the con- 
 sideration of the House those wrongs that were inflicted 
 upon them before they were represented— wrongs for 
 the redress of which indeed they sought the Franchise, 
 and by the redress obtained for which they purpose 
 to test the character of the reform that has been 
 efi"ected. It is in accordance with these reasonable 
 expectations, and not from any j)ersonal preten- 
 sions of my own, that I have consented to be the 
 humble instrument of the expression of their wishes 
 and feelings upon this occasion. But, at the same 
 time, I shall not shrink from avowing my entire 
 accordance with their opinion, that of all the wrongs 
 inflicted upon the people by the unreformed Parlia- 
 ment, and of all the errors that sprang either from 
 the ignorance or the injustice of that body, there are 
 none that stand so conspicuously forth as those 
 foolish and unrighteous laws that have for their 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 3 
 
 object to limit the amount and raise the price of 
 human subsistence. 
 
 I am told that it is of little use to raise the ques- 
 tion of the Corn Laws in this House, and that I have 
 no chance of success. I have not been blind to this 
 consideration myself ; but I have not on that account 
 been discouraged ; and I have recommended those 
 whom I represent to persevere in seeking justice from 
 the House as at present constituted, because I am one 
 who shares in the opinion that to be ever changing 
 the constitution of authority in a country like this, 
 is a great evil, and one only to be recommended 
 by an obvious necessity. And as long as I see a 
 chance of influencing the conduct of the Legislature 
 by other means, I prefer to avail myself of them. 
 
 I hope, moreover, that there is beginning to 
 be intelligence enough out of the House to render 
 discussion serviceable within it ; for I know that 
 whenever this is the case, justice cannot long be with- 
 held by the utterance of fallacy and the exercise of 
 privilege. Still I cannot shut my eyes to the fact 
 that thousands are now withdrawing their confidence 
 from the Legislature in consequence of the manner 
 in which they observe that it deals with the general 
 interests of the country. And with respect to this 
 question in particular, there is a tone assumed and a 
 temper shown that no wise man can view without 
 alarm ; for they proceed not from those from whom 
 violence is to be apprehended, but from those on whom 
 we must depend to suppress violence whenever it 
 may occur — men whose intelligence gives strength 
 
 B 2 
 
4 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to their feelings, and who now openly avow their 
 despair of justice from this House because they ob- 
 serve that the power of those who passed these Laws 
 and who still insist upon maintaining them, has been 
 strengthened by the Reform Bill ; and that they have 
 still to wait for the event of some circumstance when 
 that may be extorted from fear which is denied to 
 justice. The working people, on the other hand, are 
 putting forward their claim to be mcluded in the 
 poHtical system in a manner hitherto unknown ; 
 and alleging distinctly, as their ground for doing so, 
 that their interests are postponed or neglected to 
 favour those that already greatly preponderate in the 
 Legislature. 
 
 I trust, then, that the House will proceed to 
 consider seriously a subject to which such import- 
 ance is attached, and to encourage that patience 
 which would yet wait for its decision rather than to 
 confirm the opinion that our interest precludes the 
 fair discussion of it, I make this observation some- 
 what m anticipation of the stale and unworthy 
 reproof usually offered to those who incur the odium 
 of meddling with this matter : namely, that it is 
 introduced at an unseasonable time ; that there is 
 no excitement on the subject ; that the country is in 
 a healthy state ; and that it is mischievous to moot 
 the matter at all— reasoning that, if I comprehend it, 
 I cannot admit. I do not understand the morality or 
 the wisdom that would postpone the consideration of 
 a difficult question till we are precluded from enter- 
 ing upon it with calmness and caution. And, with 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 5 
 
 regard to the want of excitement that appears neces- 
 sary to procure interest and attention for this subject, 
 I cannot help surmising that the day is not far dis- 
 tant when there may be more excitement attaching 
 to it than may be convenient to those who now com- 
 plain of its absence. Nor can I admit the exceed- 
 ing healthiness of the country that is urged by 
 some as conclusive against the discussion of this 
 matter. When I look around and observe the num- 
 bers that are now dependent on public relief for 
 existence ; when I see a Commission now commenc- 
 ing its inquiry into the cause of the distress pervading 
 six or seven hundred thousand of our fellow- subjects ; 
 when I see that funds are being raised to assist our 
 fellow- subjects to emigrate from their country ; when 
 I see all this, I cannot help thinking that there is some 
 great fault in our social and political arrangements. 
 And when I see the questions that are now being 
 urged with so much importunity upon our attention ; 
 questions such as the combination of workmen, the 
 attempt by law to maintain the price and Umit the 
 duration of labour ; when I see these, together with 
 all the nervousness that is manifested respecting the 
 administration of public relief, I am forced to con- 
 clude that there is a large portion of the people 
 pressing upon the means of subsistence. And what 
 is the Question that 1 now submit to the notice of 
 the House, but that of the price and the amount of 
 the means of subsistence that the Legislature will 
 allow to exist in this country ? 
 
 I trust, also, that this discussion wUl not be 
 
b FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 deemed unseasonable by those who have stepped out 
 of the ordinary walks of their rank to profess unusual 
 sympathy with the poor, and who lately have been 
 denouncing in no measured language the law for the 
 relief of the poor, and the authorities appointed to 
 administer it. And here I am not alluding to those 
 faithful friends of the poor who are ever at their side, 
 aiding them consistently to improve their condition, 
 and who if they complain of the strictness of the Poor 
 Law call the more for the abolition of the Corn Laws ; 
 but to those men of rank and influence who, sup- 
 porters of the Corn Laws, are now heard lamenting 
 in taverns and at public meetings the severities of the 
 poor man's condition, and deploring his exposure to 
 the rigours of the workhouse and the hardships of the 
 factory. This Question, I say, will enable them to 
 show that they are consistent in their kindness, and 
 that they are not mere quacks and impostors who will 
 prescribe for the symptom, but who wiU not eradicate 
 the disease. But should it be found that such persons 
 (some of whom, perhaps, are indebted for their seats to 
 their recent professions) upon this occasion deem that 
 to be their duty which they know to be their interest, 
 and, therefore, oppose this Motion, then I trust that they 
 will explain in terms to be understood by the objects 
 of their sympathy upon what grounds they maintain 
 and justify Laws that limit the demand for the industry 
 of the poor and bar them from the abundance in the 
 world which Grod has provided. If they can do this 
 with any consistency, they will give to the discussion 
 what I am unable to bring to it : namely, something 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 7 
 
 of novelty. Desirous of heai-ing what they have to 
 allege, as well as what is to be alleged generally, in 
 defence of the Corn Laws, I wUl proceed with all the 
 brevity and precision of which I am capable to state 
 the grounds on which I consider them indefensible in 
 principle and injurious in operation. 
 
 And here I wUl first ask what is the principle 
 of the Corn Laws ? I believe that I adopt the 
 phrase which is current in reply when I say that it 
 is Protection — Protection of the landed interest. If it 
 is deemed necessary to say more in its defence, it is 
 alleged, that, heavily burdened as we are and living 
 under our present artificial system, the British farmer 
 cannot compete with the foreign grower without the 
 Corn Laws. Now admitting this last position to be 
 true, I dispute the justice of such a principle as that 
 of Protection. I care not whether it applies to land 
 or to trade. I object to it as unjust unless univer- 
 sally applied, and I say that it is incapable of such 
 an appKcation. It is very necessary to make this 
 clear, for there is not a word in the English language 
 more important in the review of our commercial and 
 financial polity than that of Protection. If people 
 believe that it means only a security extended by the 
 State to a portion of the community whose interests 
 are by any circumstance endangered, they will readily 
 assent to its poHcy ; but if, on the other hand, there 
 is shown to be involved in it the perpetual priva- 
 tion of the community at large of some advantage 
 within their reach, its expediency will doubtless be 
 questioned. 
 
8 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Now whence is it that this claim for Protec- 
 tion arises ? Clothe it with all the plausibility of 
 language, and what does it amount to ? Why, that 
 when some persons have embarked their property, 
 invested their capital, or become expert in the pro- 
 duction of some object of human desire, and when the 
 community in which they live have ceased to desire 
 that object, or are able to procure it elsewhere, the 
 employment of that property and skill is no longer 
 demanded ; and then the question of Protection 
 arises between the community at large and a portion 
 of it. And the community are called upon to forego 
 an advantage which is at hand, in order to continue 
 for ever a comparatively few persons in a particular 
 employment. 
 
 I contend that mankind have never sanctioned 
 such a course upon principle ; but the contrary. And 
 I say, that to do otherwise would be to bar aU human 
 improvement which is ever attended with some evil 
 on its introduction. Temporary drawbacks have 
 universally accompanied all those inventions for the 
 economy of human labour that we have turned to 
 such precious account in this country. Upon their 
 first introduction they have all occasioned loss, if not 
 ruin, to those whose employments they have super- 
 seded. But yet we have encouraged the use of 
 machinery and carried it to an extent unknown in 
 any other country, for the simple purpose of cheapen- 
 ing productions and benefiting the community. 
 And what is urged upon the unfortunate persons 
 who are rendered destitute by the introduction of 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 9 
 
 machinery, does not make any the less true their 
 complaint that by the improvement they are ruined. 
 For when it is said that machinery occasions more 
 employment and adds to the abundance of the thing 
 produced, by both of which labourers or mechanics 
 will benefit, this, though it be true as to the class gene- 
 rally, does not prevent inconvenience and loss being 
 occasioned to the original producers by the transition 
 from one system to another ; but to prevent it, nobody 
 has ever said that the community shall be injured for 
 ever. 
 
 It has, indeed, never been contemplated to allow 
 even time to the unfortunate persons displaced by 
 machinery to pass from the employment in which 
 they are skilled to any other in which they need to 
 acquire experience. Nor, indeed, is any trouble ever 
 taken to encourage people to change their employ- 
 ment, though all hope of its being continued with 
 advantage has passed away ; and yet it is by the 
 tenacity to old employments which is usually mani- 
 fested that the greatest distress is occasioned. This 
 is strongly illustrated by the case of the hand-loom 
 weavers, who ever since Dr. Cartwright's invention 
 of the power-loom have been suffering the severest 
 privations, and who, partly from the expectation that 
 their trade will revive and partly deluded by a hope 
 of assistance from the Legislature, are themselves stUl 
 adhering to the same employment and training up 
 their families in it. Now this, doubtless, is a case 
 where Protection would be demanded and exacted by 
 the sufferers if they had the power to enforce their 
 
10 FREE TRADE SPEECHES, 
 
 claims. But what would tlie community think of 
 the reasonableness of Protection that would preclude 
 them from all the advantages that follow from this 
 economy in production ? What would they think 
 of a total prohibition of all cloths produced by the 
 power-loom ? Or, if any relaxation of such a law were 
 granted, what would they think if it went no further 
 than to tolerate articles woven by the power-loom 
 only when those produced by the hand-loom had 
 reached a certain price ? And yet might not such a 
 policy be expected if this class of producers were in 
 the proportion of three-fourths of this House, and 
 entirely occupied the Upper House of the Legis- 
 lature ? Might not most of the arguments or things 
 said in defence of the Corn Laws then be urged in 
 defence of such objectionable regulations ? With 
 respect to the better machinery of the power-loom, 
 might not the Revenue with equal justice be pleaded ; 
 might not the present artificial system of the country 
 be equally urged as a reason against any change ? 
 And if the weaver were told that he was injurmg 
 himself no less than the community, and that he 
 would risk the loss of his customers abroad by other 
 producers resorting to the better machinery ; why 
 might it not in that case be urged, as it probably 
 will be to-night, that all this is abstract ; that it 
 might do for France, but that it would never do for 
 England ; and that the Revenue could not be collected 
 without protection to the British weaver ? I ask if 
 there is any difference in principle between the case 
 of a manufacturer who is injured by the use of better 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 11 
 
 macliiiiery tlian his own, and that of the owner of 
 a bad soil who is affected by resort being had to a 
 better ? 
 
 And is there any doubt how we should act in 
 other cases where considerable disturbances of capital 
 and loss would be occasioned by changes in which 
 the community would benefit? I will suppose, for 
 instance, a case of which we have heard something 
 this year : namely, a discovery by which heat could 
 be distributed in chambers at a trifling cost, and 
 without the means of coal fuel. Can anything be 
 imagined that would occasion a greater disturbance of 
 vested or settled interests than such a blessing as 
 chis ; and is there a smgie argument urged against 
 cheap food that might not equally be used against 
 cheap fuel? Should we not hear of the engagement 
 of the coal-owners, of settlements charged on the col- 
 lieries, of the coasting trade essential to our commer- 
 cial marine on which the British Navy is said to 
 depend, of all the capital invested in wharves and 
 waggons in this town, and the contributions to the 
 Excise occasioned by the labourers employed in the 
 trade? And yet if we should chance to discuss a 
 claim to Protection by the coal-owners agamst the 
 community enjoying this enormous benefit in the 
 winter season, would any one escape derision who 
 advanced a word in its favour? And if this is ad- 
 mitted, what is it but the admission of that very 
 principle and policy which persons are so apt to 
 deride and so unwilling to discuss — freedom in 
 trade? For what is this freedom, but liberty for 
 
12 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 persons to provide, and the community to enjoy, that 
 which is needful and desired at the lowest cost and 
 at the greatest advantage? This is at once the pur- 
 pose of all Foreign Trade and the policy of Free 
 Trade ; and it is the very ground on which we now 
 contend, iu the name of justice and consistency, to 
 be allowed to procure food by a better and cheaper 
 machinery than we can at present, condemned as we 
 are by law to adhere to bad and expensive soils 
 which under extraordinary circumstances were forced 
 into use in this country. If we could produce heat 
 at a cheaper rate, we should not protect those who 
 now depend for profit and employment upon our con- 
 sumption of coal fuel : we could procure food at a 
 cheaper rate, but we are not allowed to do so because 
 of the Protection required and enforced by the land- 
 owners. Is there any difference between the two 
 cases ? And if not, how can we be acting justly, 
 wisely, or consistently? 
 
 I own that I have often considered whether it 
 might not be advisable when the community derives 
 some great advantage from any change of system 
 or any new invention, to give to the persons whose 
 occupations may be thereby destroyed, some indem- 
 nity, or at least to allow the advantage to be introduced 
 by degrees. But then, if this would be just to any, 
 it would be due to all placed under similar circum- 
 stances ; and my difficulty in proposing such a con- 
 sideration to the land- owners would be that the same 
 regard would not be shown to other persons if they 
 were not equally powerful. My desire would be to 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 13 
 
 save as mucli misery and inconvenience as possible ; 
 but I desire also tbat no favour should be shown to 
 one class more than to another. 
 
 In arguing agaiast the principle of Protection for 
 the purpose of maintaining persons in particular em- 
 ployments opposed to the interests of the community, 
 I am not overlooking the cases in which Protection 
 is wisely given : I allude to cases where a direct tax 
 for the purpose of revenue is put upon any article 
 manufactured at home ; because if the article were 
 not protected by an import duty in that case, it 
 would cease to be manufactured at home ; and there- 
 fore in order to preserve the means of raising the 
 tax it is necessary to impose a corresponding duty 
 upon the same article when imported. But the 
 analogy of this case with that of land would be far 
 from complete, supposing that there was any direct 
 tax on the produce of land for the purpose of revenue ; 
 for we know that the same produce is raised from 
 lands of very dilFerent fertility : some lands, at a 
 given cost of production, yielding eight bushels an 
 acre, while others may yield twenty-five bushels or 
 more ; and therefore any fixed duty for the purpose 
 of retaining some lands in cultivation, might operate 
 as a bounty upon others that could, from their fertility, 
 bear competition with the soils of any other country. 
 
 By some, however, it is alleged that it is the heavy 
 general taxation of the country that justifies the Corn 
 Laws, inasmuch as the landed proprietors contribute 
 to it in a far greater proportion than any other class. 
 I wish that this could be alleged with truth, if it were 
 
14 FREE TBADE SPEECHES. 
 
 only to satisfy the community that they are not injured 
 without a pretext of justice. But, unfortunately, it is 
 not easy to mystify the sources of our Revenue ; and 
 if the land-owners were taxed in greater proportion 
 than the rest of the community, it would be as easy 
 to prove it as it is now easy to show that such is 
 not the case. For what is to be thought of such 
 a defence of the Corn Laws, when we consider the 
 chief sources of revenue, and it is shown that the 
 Customs and Excise duties alone account for nearly 
 75 per cent, of the Revenue, and that both are reduced 
 and Hmited in amount by the Corn Laws? The 
 amount of Customs duties must vary with the amount 
 of our imports, and they must, of course, vary with 
 the extent of our trade with foreign countries. Now, 
 it is clear that, as we do not export the produce of the 
 soil, this trade must depend upon the export of our 
 manufactures, which must be regulated by their cost 
 of production here as compared with their price in 
 other countries. Whatever, therefore, tends to raise 
 the price of production must limit our foreign trade, 
 which in turn must limit the Revenue now made 
 dependent upon it for twenty millions and upwards ; 
 and as the high price of food necessarily raises the 
 cost of production, and as this high price is the effect 
 of the Corn Laws, it is not difficult to perceive how 
 false a pretext the Reveniie is for their existence. 
 
 Not less obvious is it, indeed, that they must 
 operate in limiting the revenue derived from the 
 Excise ; for let any person consider on what articles 
 of consumption these duties are imposed, and who 
 
HOUSE OE COMMONS. 15 
 
 are the principal consTimerg, and then doubt, if he 
 can, that the consnmption of those articles is limited 
 by the necessity of paying a high price for the first 
 necessary of life. 
 
 That in this country consumption generally is 
 dependent upon the state of trade — injured as I have 
 shown it to be by the Corn Laws, may be well inferred 
 from the simple fact, that in the Cotton Trade alone 
 upwards of thirty-seven millions of capital are em- 
 ployed and that in six departments of the labour 
 engaged in manufacture more than seventeen millions 
 sterling are aixaually paid in wages. And when to 
 this amount is added what we may surmise to be paid 
 in wages in the other departments of labour exclusive 
 of agriculture, and what proportion of such wages are 
 and would be spent in exciseable articles, we have some 
 measure of the assurance of those who tell us that 
 a high price of bread is essential to the maintenance 
 of the Revenue, 
 
 It has, moreover, been suggested to me, even by 
 Members of this House, that the assessed taxes would 
 hardly be paid without Protection to the landed 
 interest ; and this is stated and believed in face of 
 the notorious fact that what is termed the landed 
 interest has been more exempted from these taxes 
 than any other interest. For instance, farmhouses 
 never paid the house tax, they do not now pay the 
 window tax ; the farmers pay no tax for their ser- 
 vants, their horses, their dogs, their carts ; they pay 
 no duty on insurance ; and landed property passes 
 by descent without legacy or probate duty, a duty 
 
16 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 that has pressed heavily upon personal property and 
 yielded an enormous sum since it was first imposed : 
 added to which Ireland, which is chiefly an agricul- 
 tural country, has never been made liable to the 
 assessed taxes at all. The assessed taxes, then, are 
 surely a strange ground on which to rest the plea for 
 Protection to the landed interest, as making greater 
 contribution to the Revenue. 
 
 But it would not be less manifestly absurd were 
 we to test such pretence by any other branch of 
 our public income. Take, for example, that which 
 is usually considered as the next most important : 
 namely, the Stamp Duty. I do not doubt that this, 
 dependmg as it does upon the multiplied dealings 
 between persons engaged in the active business 
 of hfe, might be shown to be limited by whatever 
 curtails the commercial transactions of the country, 
 which of necessity is the effect of adding to the cost 
 of living. 
 
 Then again, while some men allege general taxa- 
 tion, others adduce local taxation as an excuse for 
 the Corn Laws. In this case, as in the preceding, the 
 ground, when sifted and examined, will be found to 
 be equally untenable. I deny, in the first place, that 
 we have any proof that the particular property pro- 
 tected by the Corn Laws is assessed for local purposes 
 in any greater proportion on the whole than other 
 property. The legal liability for several of these 
 charges attaches to local and visible property ; and 
 though in some parishes the arable land may bear a 
 greater proportion of them than other property so 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 17 
 
 charged, yet, in many places, sucli other property 
 is the more heavily burthened. 
 
 As regards individual properties nothing can be 
 more unjust and capricious than the whole system of 
 this taxation. This, however, does not show that 
 tillage land is more burthened than houses or pasture 
 land, or other property ; nor does it show in what 
 proportion land-owners are unequally taxed ; and 1 
 believe that if individuals were allowed to prove each 
 their own case, it would be shown that there are 
 small householders who have much more reason to 
 com^alain than the landholder. 
 
 I must here observe that if these local charges 
 which have been so often alleged as an excuse for the 
 Corn Laws, do afford any ground in truth or justice 
 for them, we ought upon these charges being re- 
 duced or removed, to hear of some reduction of the 
 duty upon foreign grain. But though we now hear 
 of the poor rates being reduced some millions a year, 
 of half of the county rate beuag fixed upon the Con- 
 solidated Fund, and of the value of land bemg raised 
 by the Act for the Commutation of Tithes, the very 
 slightest modification of the Corn Laws is resisted 
 with greater fierceness and tenacity than at any time 
 before. And yet if the landed interest have the Com 
 Laws to indemnify them for these charges, why are 
 they to be indemnified at the expense of the com- 
 munity, without any mitigation of the national evil 
 occasioned by the Corn Laws? Is that equitable? 
 is it right? and if it is endured, what greater injury 
 may not next be expected ! 
 
 VOL. I. c 
 
18 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 It is urged that the Tithe is in the nature of a 
 direct and permanent tax upon the land for which 
 the land- owner has a right to indemnity, and that 
 this is an excuse for the Corn Laws. I should like 
 to test this by the case and claim of any individual 
 proprietor ; and for this purpose I should be willing 
 to erect a tribunal before which he might appear and 
 receive compensation wherever he could show himself 
 entitled to it. I am much mistaken if any proprietor 
 would not be put out of such a court by, at most, three 
 questions which might be proposed to him. The first 
 should be, whether he did not own the Tithe himself, 
 as many do ; the second, whether his land were not 
 Tithe free, which half the land of this kingdom is ; 
 and the third, whether he did not take his land sub- 
 ject to the charge, and, if he were the purchaser, 
 whether he did not pay less on that account. Thus 
 the number entitled to compensation would be reduced 
 to the comparatively few who after having improved 
 or cultivated their land, would become subject to the 
 Tithe upon the improved value of that land. 
 
 But it has again and again been asserted by those 
 who condemn the Corn Laws, that they are not de- 
 sirous of inflicting upon others the injustice of which 
 they complain, and that they do not wish to see the 
 owners of the soil taxed in unequal proportion with 
 any other class of the community ; but that, on the 
 contrary, they would gladly see every pretext for the 
 enormous injustice of the Corn Laws removed by a 
 more regular system of local taxation. 
 
 There is one tax to which I have not referred, and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 19 
 
 ■whicli some of the more intelligent land-owners have 
 admitted to be the only ground on which the defence 
 of the Corn Laws can be rested: namely, the Malt Tax. 
 Now, of all the forced and fantastical notions that are 
 brought forward in defence of these Laws this appears 
 to me to be one of the most striking. It rests upon the 
 ground that more barley would be consumed if the 
 tax on malt were taken off, and that the more barley 
 consumed the better it would be for the barley- 
 growers. This doubtless is true, because it is true 
 that any tax upon an article of consumption limits 
 the amount of the article consumed ; but then it is 
 just as good a ground for Monopoly for any other 
 producer who supplies the material for any other 
 manufactured article. The manufacturers of glass, 
 for instance, might with equal reason complain of the 
 Window Tax as the barley-growers of the Malt Tax, 
 and their complaint on such grounds would certainly 
 equally well illustrate the fancy that monkeys are 
 said to have for feeding from their neighbour's pans, to 
 which our whole commercial system has been not inap- 
 propriately Likened. For if the Malt Tax diminishes 
 the consumption of barley, how must the tax on bread 
 — an article that cannot be dispensed with, diminish the 
 consumption of all other articles ? And even on the 
 supposition that the Malt Tax falls upon the land- 
 owners alone, how can the people be said to benefit 
 by it if, in consequence of it, they are obliged to pay 
 a heavy tax on bread ? But the greater number of 
 land-owners desire to repeal the Malt Tax, and yet to 
 leave the tax on bread. Constant efforts are being 
 
 c 2 
 
20 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 made for this purpose, wHcb. if successful would 
 have the effect of changing the use of much of the 
 land from the growth of wheat to the growth of bar- 
 ley ; and thus by limiting the amount of wheat pro- 
 duced they would add to its price ; and by raising 
 the price of bread they would add to the evil of the 
 Corn Laws. 
 
 When all these pretexts for Monopoly resting on 
 unequal contribution to the Revenue are shown to be 
 without ground, it is contended that Protection is 
 part of a system, and that the landed interest ought 
 to be protected as well as the interest connected with 
 manufacture. The motto of these logicians is, ' Live 
 and let live,' which is strangely like, ' Take and let 
 us take ; ' for if examined it will be found to be the 
 defence of one injustice to the community at the cost 
 of another. But, in the first place, it is no defence of 
 the policy arraigned to show that taxing the con- 
 sumer for the benefit of the producer is done in more 
 cases than one. Again, there is a convenient fallacy 
 in this mode of arguing, for it implies an equal apph- 
 cation of the principle of Protection to every interest 
 that is protected ; whereas in this case, while the 
 land-owner has a protection of from eighty to one hun- 
 dred per cent, and upwards, the manufacturers in no 
 instance are protected to a greater amount than thirty 
 per cent., and in most cases less. 
 
 In many cases manufacturers export the articles 
 on which the duty is imposed, thus showing that it is 
 not needed, and that it is wholly inoperative ; and in 
 all cases it is contended by them that the Protection 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 21 
 
 they seek is not against tlie superior skill and capital 
 of the foreigner, but against the effect of the Corn 
 Laws, which places them under a disadvantage with 
 respect to every foreign producer. The truth is, that 
 neither merchant nor manufacturer calls for Protec- 
 tion : both have for many years repudiated the prin- 
 ciple altogether. And the merchants of London, when 
 presenting their petition to this House, most distinctly 
 denounced it as not affording them any advantage ; 
 and declared that it was against every restrictive regu- 
 lation of trade, and against all duties merely pro- 
 tective from foreign competition, that the prayer of 
 their petition was presented to Parliament. 
 
 If it be said that some of those who signed that 
 petition have changed their opinion, I would refer to 
 the petition addressed to the House but a few weeks 
 ago from the largest manufacturing district in the 
 world, which was presented by my honourable friend 
 the Member for Manchester from the Chamber of 
 Commerce of that town ; and in which, in the most 
 unequivocal terms, all Protection is repudiated as 
 disadvantageous to manufacture. 
 
 There are other grounds, 1 am aware, on which 
 Protection to the landed interest has been defended ; 
 but it is the advantage of repeated discussion that 
 certain fallacies, after being frequently exposed, be- 
 come ridiculous and cannot be repeated. I hardly 
 expect to hear some familiar to me mentioned this 
 evening ; such, for instance, as that the Corn Laws 
 are of the nature of a political institution ia this 
 country, and are as necessary to the maintenance of 
 
22 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the aristocracy as any part of the Constitution. Upon 
 this fallacy an able and humorous writer ia the 
 'Examiner' has most justly observed that if the 
 aristocracy of this country can be maintained only at 
 the expense of the people, the fact should at once be 
 avowed and provision made for them in the Estimates ; 
 that an annual vote for esquires and magistrates 
 should follow that for the army and navy ; and that 
 thus a method less costly than that of the Corn Laws 
 would be provided for their maintenance. But this 
 pretext for the Corn Laws, like others equally pre- 
 posterous, will not I expect be urged again. 
 
 And now having, I think, sufficiently examined 
 the claim that the landed interest have to Protection 
 at the expense of the community, it is important to 
 show what the expense of that Protection is. For I 
 cannot suppose that the public at large are yet aware 
 of the extent of their loss ; and when it is known 
 and understooa, I cannot suppose that it will be much 
 longer endured. 
 
 I have made my calculation of this loss by simple 
 arithmetic, and if there is any error in it, the error 
 can be easUy detected. I take the admitted estimate 
 of some years since of the amount of grain produced 
 in this country, which was 52,000,000 quarters. At 
 first it appears only reasonable to multiply that 
 number by the amount of the present duty, which 
 is nearly 32s. a quarter. This, however, might be 
 deemed fallacious ; for if the corn were imported into 
 this country free of duty, the price on the Continent 
 would rise ; and it is not perhaps right to include in 
 
HOUSK OF COMMONS. 23 
 
 a calculation of public loss what the cultivators 
 consume themselves. For fear, therefore, of any 
 question arising on this ground, I will imderstate 
 the loss in every respect. I will suppose that the 
 price of grain will, on an average, fall only 12s. a 
 quarter ; and that only one half of what is produced 
 is brought into the market for public consumption, 
 which would be 26,000,000 quarters. This at 12s. 
 a quarter gives a sum equal to 15,600,000^., which 
 must consequently be taken to be the very least 
 that the community loses by the Corn Laws ; but 
 which is greatly under the land-owners' own calcu- 
 lation of what their own loss would be if the ports 
 were open ; and which is, therefore, according to 
 them, greatly understatmg the loss to the community 
 at present. 
 
 But what a sum to be annually lost to the 
 country, 15,600,000^.! and not one 6(7. of it carried 
 to the public account or applied to alleviate the public 
 burdens, but actually causing the aggravation of 
 many of them ; for wherever the public expenditure 
 has reference to the cost of provisions, everything that 
 enhances that cost adds to the public taxation. For 
 instance, the expense of the Victualling Department 
 must be precisely increased by the difference in the 
 price occasioned by laws that prohibit the importa- 
 tion of cheap provisions. Lord Fitzwilliam has cal- 
 culated this loss within a certain period, upon the 
 most moderate estimate, at not less than 600,000^. or 
 700,000^. 
 
 Again, the pay given to many persons employed 
 
24 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 in the public service must have distinct reference to 
 the cost of living ; and the expense of maintaining 
 the army — especially the cavalry — the navy, the pohce, 
 is thus increased by these Laws. And it is increased 
 without contributing anything to their comforts or 
 condition, but the contrary ; because, sufFeriag as 
 the people do from the pressure of taxation, they 
 grudge every penny that is added to the public ex- 
 penditure, and public servants therefore are pinched, 
 and reduced to the very lowest scale on which they 
 will consent to render service to the State. This, 
 while we endure the enormous burden of the Corn 
 Laws for the profit and satisfaction of a class who 
 render no service in return, must, I maintaia, be 
 regarded as a hardship upon public servants rather 
 than as an advantage to the State. 
 
 Indeed, I feel it so strongly that I can hardly take 
 an interest in the labours of those who are ever 
 toilmg to reduce our public establishments — praise- 
 worthy as those labours are — when I consider how 
 little can be effected for the people by any reduction, 
 compared to the advantage they would derive from 
 the abolition of the odious Monopoly of food. I 
 do not like to reflect upon the scanty pittance we 
 award to our fellow-countrymen who hazard life and 
 health in distant parts of the world in the public 
 service, and for whom we dare not make an adequate 
 provision after their best days have been so ex- 
 hausted. I cannot bear to see that we are compelled 
 to impose such harsh conditions upon employing 
 other public servants, as almost to turn from our 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 25 
 
 service men of liberal education. And I cannot sup- 
 press indignation when I remember that this is chiefly- 
 rendered necessary to enable us to bear a Monopoly- 
 grievous to the country at large, as -well as operating 
 with peculiar mischief upon many particular interests 
 which have to struggle against active competition in 
 their trade. The ship-owners, for example, see their 
 rivals within a few hours of this coast, provisioning 
 their ships at half the cost at which they themselves 
 can provision theirs, and they are compelled on that 
 account to reduce their freights to a rate that barely 
 admits of a profit upon their capital. On the other 
 hand, in order that the ship-owners may prosper, the 
 community is visited with another most oppressive 
 Monopoly which would not be required but for the 
 mischievous operation of the laws that in the first 
 instance crippled the ship-owners. 
 
 Again, observe the loss that is daily being sus- 
 tained by those whose capital has been embarked in 
 maintaining the intercourse of the country by means 
 of public conveyances, and who are now brought into 
 competition with railroads and locomotive engines. 
 Why is the coach proprietor to be placed under the 
 disadvantage of maintaining his horses at double the 
 expense that is necessary ? And why is he, if not 
 protected against the steam engine, to be injured by 
 Protection aff"orded to the producers of corn ? 
 
 After showing that so enormous a loss is each 
 year positively occasioned to the country without a 
 semblance of justice or policy, it might well be thought 
 that I had concluded the argument against the con- 
 
26 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 tinuance of the Corn LaAA's. I cannot with truth 
 say that the case against the Corn Laws has as yet 
 been nearly stated. Everything that I have hitherto 
 advanced sinks into comparative insignificance when 
 we come to regard the Corn Laws in their operation 
 upon the sources of this country's greatness — its 
 wealth and credit. The greatness I ascribe to the 
 superiority of our manufactures and the extent of 
 our commerce. This it is that, in my judgment, has 
 given to England her present position, and made us 
 the envy of our neighbours. That my opinion is 
 sound could, I think, be proved to demonstration. 
 But to argue from it with the friends of the Corn 
 Laws, it is important to know how far they dispute 
 or deny it. And hence I am now desirous to learn 
 the agricultural creed upon the subject. 
 
 If the farmers' friends think that the vastness of 
 our power and the attitude that we have been able to 
 assume towards the rest of mankind for the last fifty 
 or sixty years, are to be ascribed to the high price of 
 food occasioned by the cultivation of poor soils, and 
 can prove this to be the case, I will admit at once 
 that we must pause before we sufi'er such soU to lie 
 waste. But if, on the contrary, I am right in my 
 conclusion that we owe the achievements accom- 
 plished during the late war, as weU as the means of 
 now maintaining the debt we then incurred and of 
 supporting our present expenditure, to our manufac- 
 tures and commerce — the result of all that science, 
 skill, capital and labour could accomplish, then, I 
 say, let us be careful that we do not by selfish and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 27 
 
 foolisli legislation impair these great mainsprings of 
 our power. 
 
 My position briefly is this : our Foreign Trade 
 depending upon our superiority in manufacture is 
 essential to the maintenance of our Revenue and of 
 minions of our people, and thereby of our credit 
 and of our safety. My charge against the Corn 
 Laws is that they limit and endanger our Foreign 
 Trade, and that all such laws proceed upon a policy 
 directly the reverse of that which is recommended 
 by the present cu'cumstances and condition of the 
 country. And my charge against the Legislature is 
 that this policy has been pursvied in this country 
 since the close of the last war, now twenty-three 
 years ago, though each year has proved the folly of 
 it by the injury that it has entailed and is now in- 
 flicting upon the country. 
 
 If more were not to be imputed to utter ignorance 
 of the interests of the country than to deliberate 
 injustice or indifi"erence, it would be impossible for 
 any man to rise from the contemplation of our present 
 circumstances compared with our position at the close 
 of the war, without anger and indignation at the 
 manner in which all the interests of this great com- 
 mercial community have been abandoned and neg- 
 lected. At the close of the war we had exclusive 
 possession of all the markets in the world. We had 
 the means of maintaining that possession. We had 
 the right to stipulate by treaty for its maintenance. 
 And it was not against the interest of any country 
 that we should so stipulate : we could no longer add 
 
28 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to our wealth by agriculture, and other countries had 
 not begun to acquire wealth by manufacture. To 
 whatever part of the world we turned, there was an 
 increasing desire and demand for our manufactures, 
 in the production of which we had obtained a start 
 of all other people which promised us lasting pre-emi- 
 nence. It was, moreover, our interest above every- 
 thing at that time to obtain customers in aU parts of 
 the world to supply and to compensate us for the 
 prodigious void created in this country by the cessa- 
 tion of the vast expenditure that had been carried on 
 by means of borrowed money. A great occasion was 
 also offered for acquiring by means of commercial 
 engagement, that which was then sincerely desired 
 throughout Europe : namely, permanent security for 
 the maintenance of peace ; and the condition of this 
 country, the north of Europe, and the United States 
 respectively, never perhaps offered another oppor- 
 tunity so favourable for a permanent and peacefal 
 union, based on mutual commercial interests. 
 
 It is difficult therefore to ascribe to anything but 
 the grossest ignorance of all the real interests of this 
 country, the manner in which that important moment 
 was neglected and overlooked. How else can we ac- 
 count for the conduct of a Minister who, sent to repre- 
 sent this country at a Congress of Sovereigns indebted 
 each one to England for the means so to assemble, 
 failed to stipulate for a single advantage for our 
 commerce ; neglected to demand indemnity of any 
 sort for the vast expenditure that we had made in a 
 cause in which every country was more interested than 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS.. 29 
 
 ourselves ; and in the division of the spoil only 
 claimed for this country further engagements of diffi- 
 culty and expense in which we had no kind of 
 interest? And after all our sacrifices, for which to 
 this day we are smarting dearly, we found ourselves 
 bound to erect fortresses in one kingdom, to guarantee 
 the integrity of another, and to occupy with an army 
 a third. 
 
 Xor indeed could we complain that we were mis- 
 represented abroad, when we observe the conduct of 
 the Legislature at home. After deliberating upon 
 the altered circumstances of the country, this House 
 resolved itself into a Committee to consider by what 
 means it could best raise and maintain the price 
 of food — the first element in the cost of that very 
 production by which we had so wonderfully extended 
 our resources. So that, proceeding at home upon 
 the monstrous fallacy that agriculture was the source 
 of all our greatness, and abroad stipulating nothing 
 for our foreign commerce, we were doing everything 
 in our power to cripple our manufactures. 
 
 Now if all this had been the error of a par- 
 ticular Grovernment or the folly of a party that had 
 ceased to exist, it would, I know, be idle to refer to 
 it, the time to remedy the evil being now past ; but 
 it is our misfortune that it is the policy of the present 
 hour. The policy of that day — that the home trade is 
 the best trade and that we ought to create customers 
 by Act of Parliament for that trade and be as little 
 dependent as possible upon Foreign Trade, is the 
 ground on which the Corn Laws are defended to-day. 
 
30 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 By many, Mgli rents were then tlaought to be identi- 
 cal with, a large revenue, and whatever raised the 
 rent of land was deemed a national advantage. But 
 the objection now urged against the Com Laws as a 
 means of raising rent is, as it was then, that by rais- 
 ing the price of food we add to the difficidty of main- 
 taining our Foreign Trade which the circumstances 
 of the country do not admit of our either losing or 
 lessening. And if, after an ample period for judging 
 of its effect, appeal is now made to the result of this 
 policy, I would ask whether the objection is not 
 justified. Have we not entirely lost some markets? 
 Have not others become less profitable? And are 
 not our manufacturers daily threatened with further 
 loss? I would ask those who maintain the Corn 
 Laws, and who in fact rule this country, whether 
 after such an experience they still deem it for the 
 interest of England to continue a system by which 
 our Foreign Trade is thus seriously injured. 
 
 It will not be denied, I presume, that in many 
 respects we have lost the market of Germany ; that 
 with the Continent our commercial prospects are each 
 day becoming worse ; that with America our trade 
 has been greatly limited ; that we are also in danger 
 from the competition of the United States in neutral 
 markets ; and that had we retained and extended our 
 trade, as we might have done, we should have been 
 in a better condition to have borne our public bur- 
 dens, and have been spared much of the distress that 
 has been experienced in this country. Nor will it, I 
 conclude, be denied that this has all followed from our 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 31 
 
 perverse adherence to the Corn Laws and the other 
 restramts to the freedom of commerce. 
 
 If any person should doubt this, let him turn 
 to the records of our diplomacy and observe the re- 
 peated remonstrances against our restrictive system 
 from various nations who sought our market for the 
 products of their several countries. There we have 
 the distinct complaint of Prussia that we excluded 
 her corn and her timber which she was ready to ex- 
 change for our maniifactures. From our own Minister 
 at Washington we learn that the American Govern- 
 ment justified its tariff by the exclusion of her corn 
 from our market. And we know that the tariff 
 was opposed by those States whose products we did 
 suffer to be imported. In fact we were warned and 
 threatened in every way by other countries with the 
 consequences of our Corn Laws before their tariffs 
 were imposed ; and experience has sufficiently shown 
 that whatever may be the disposition of particular 
 Governments in adopting an unwise policy, if the 
 interests of the influential classes are practically 
 enlisted against it, it is impossible to carry it into 
 effect. 
 
 And what has followed from the Corn Laws that 
 was not distinctly predicted by those who opposed 
 them? It was said that we should turn our custo- 
 mers into rivals ; that by raising the price of food at 
 home we should give those rivals a great advantage 
 in competition with us ; that we should lower the rate 
 of profit here and drive capital to seek hazardous 
 investments in the hope of higher profit ; that we 
 
32 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 should tempt our capitalists and meclianics to leave 
 our shores with a view to the same object ; and 
 that as the profits of Agriculture were made to depend 
 upon Monopoly, this interest would share in much 
 of the distress that it would occasion to others. 
 Which of these results, I ask, has been wanting to 
 prove the truth of their prediction? In what respect 
 has Mr. Huskisson been shown to be in error in that 
 most able speech which he delivered in this House 
 eight years since, and in which he taught us what 
 to expect from the undue pressure of Monopoly and 
 Taxation upon the productive classes? And what 
 may we not expect to follow if we continue to restrict 
 our capital and industry in its profitable employ- 
 ment ? 
 
 I do not know what country gentlemen think of 
 the loss of any branch of our Foreign Trade ; but of 
 this they may be sure, that whenever it does occur in 
 this country, it is immediately followed by the misery 
 and destitution of a portion of our people. At this 
 very moment there are thousands of persons sufi'ering 
 the greatest privations from no other circumstance 
 than from their trade having passed into the hands of 
 foreigners ; though it is unknown, perhaps, even to 
 the Members of the counties in which these persons 
 are that such is the case. In Nottingham, for instance, 
 how many are now enduring tlie greatest distress 
 from the loss of the Hosiery Trade of which they 
 have been successfully deprived by the Germans ? 
 Indeed it is a fact which ought to startle those who 
 really understand in what the interest of this country 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 33 
 
 consists, that the Germans not only have ceased to 
 demand the hosiery of this country — formerly an article 
 of extensive import with them — and that they undersell 
 us in every part of the world in this article, but that 
 they undersell us in Nottingham itself, after paying 
 20 per cent. duty. Moreover, the only chance that 
 we could have of recovering the trade would be the 
 application of steam power to the stocking frame. 
 This is now in contemplation ; but if it is accom- 
 plished it wUl add still more to the present misery 
 and distress of a large number of inhabitants of the 
 district. Is it possible to view such a state of things 
 with indifiference? Only five years ago the value of our 
 Hosiery Trade was estimated at 900,000^. a year, and 
 the people to whom it gave employment in the two 
 counties of Nottingham and Derby alone, amounted to 
 40,000, most of whom are now suffering the direst 
 distress. And yet the probability is that the landed 
 proprietors whose estates have been enhanced in value 
 by the consumption of this manufacture, will all direct 
 the Members for those counties to vote against the 
 consideration even of the operation of the Corn Laws 
 to which the present distress is to be traced. 
 
 And why is not that which has happened in the 
 Stocking Trade to occur also in any other trade? 
 There is hardly a branch of our trade that has not 
 been affected by foreign competition. We find from 
 authenticated returns that all the countries that we 
 have compelled by our restrictive system to engage 
 in the cotton manufacture are, after several years' 
 experience, not only able to maintain their ground 
 
 VOL. I. D 
 
34 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 but are also making progress. This is the case in 
 France, Austria, Switzerland, Prussia, and the United 
 States ; in each of which there is some peculiar ad- 
 vantage that enables them to enter successfully into 
 competition with us either in the coarser fabrics or 
 in manufactured goods. 
 
 And where is it that we have suffered most? 
 Precisely where the cost of living has entered most 
 into the cost of production. And this loss is at pre- 
 sent completely indicated by the character of our ex- 
 ports to the Contment. A change in this respect has 
 been gradually taking place in cotton goods. We 
 now chiefly export such articles as we produce by 
 means of our machinery at a lower cost than foreigners 
 are yet able to do. They now demand from us a 
 greater quantity of yarn and fewer manufactured 
 goods because they are able by manual labour to 
 manufacture the yarn spun ui this country and to 
 undersell us in such goods in the markets that we 
 used to command. In the United States, on the 
 other hand, we find that by means of the greater 
 cheapness of water power and from proximity to the 
 raw material, they are supplying themselves, and 
 underselling us abroad, in the coarser fabrics. 
 
 Nor is this change confined to our cotton manu- 
 factures : it is still more the case in hardware, in many 
 articles of which we have completely lost the trade. 
 Whole branches of the Hardware Trade have left 
 Sheffield, and are now carried on m the provinces of 
 Rhenish Prussia, where it will be found that the 
 best white bread is Hd. per lb. and meat Sd. per lb. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 35 
 
 In short, it is impossible for any candid person 
 to examine the evidence that we now possess on the 
 subject and not to conclude that as this competition 
 with foreigners will not be stationary, as it arises 
 from the exclusion of their surplus products of which 
 we are in need and from the cheapness in their mode 
 of living, we are now arrived at the period when we 
 must elect between the Corn Laws and our Foreign 
 Trade. I have come to this conclusion after careful 
 inquuy and due consideration of the evidence that 
 is put forth by credible authority. I do hope that 
 upon the present occasion Members of this House who 
 are connected with Manufacture will speak out ; that if 
 I am in error they will declare it ; that if I am not 
 they will confirm me in the views I have stated. 
 Their practical knowledge on these subjects must 
 give weight to their opinion ; and as I collect from 
 them in. private that the repeal of the Corn Laws is 
 of vital importance to the great interests they re- 
 present, I trust that they who were not used to fear 
 the frowns of the landed aristocracy, will not now 
 shrink fi-om publicly avowing theu' opinions. I wish 
 the subject to be fairly considered, and for the public 
 to decide on which side evil preponderates : whether 
 in maintaining a permanent superiority in manufac- 
 tures without the Corn Laws, or in adhering to our 
 present system. 
 
 And now having gone through the catalogue 
 of evils that I conceive to follow from these Laws, 
 where, I ask, are we to turn for their redeeming 
 results? To what cheering spot do the land-owners 
 
 D 2 
 
36 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 point in order to reconcile us to tlieir continued 
 endurance? Is it to tlie thriving and prosperous 
 condition of the landed interest? They have now a 
 period of twenty-four years of their policy to review. 
 Where is the evidence of its success ? Is it the occu- 
 pier of their land, or the labourer of their tenant that 
 they invite for this proof ? Are these the witnesses 
 that they offer of a happy, prospering, and contented 
 class, dependent for their condition on partial legisla- 
 tion? Would the farmers or the labourers describe 
 themselves as a prospering, contented class? Or 
 have they ever so described themselves? Is this the 
 account that they would give of themselves, or that 
 they have ever given? Have the land-owners even 
 so described them? What is it that our shelves 
 are groaning with upstairs but allegations, debates, 
 inquiries, and reports on the distress, always de- 
 scribed as unparalleled, of the very class whose well- 
 being is pleaded in excuse for the Corn Laws ? It was 
 not more than five years after the first Corn Law came 
 into operation that a Committee of the House was 
 sitting to inquire into the cause of the excessive dis- 
 tress of the agricultural interest. And what was it 
 that was more than implied by the Report of that 
 Committee of the then unreformed House, but that 
 the distress was owing to the Corn Law itself — a 
 measure mischievous and delusive in its character, and 
 calculated to mislead and ruin all who had to do with 
 the trade in corn ? 
 
 If it be said that this had reference to the Act 
 of 1815, I would ask what was alleged against jt 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 37 
 
 wMch may not be proved to have followed, or may 
 not be expected to follow from the present Corn Laws ? 
 If it was alleged against the measure of 1815 that it 
 deluded the farmer into making engagements that he 
 could not realize ; to promise rent for his land that he 
 was unable to pay while depending on the price for 
 his produce which the law assured him, how, has his 
 position in this respect been improved by the modifi- 
 cation of that measure in the Corn Laws now in opera- 
 tion ? What were the promises of the Fluctuating Scale 
 which was substituted for the Act of 1815? Mr. 
 Canning introduced it. What were his hopes and 
 even his promises with regard to it? Why, that the 
 markets would assume stability and that the vibra- 
 tions of price would be limited within the small range 
 of 55.S'. to 65s. Let us then see how far these vibra- 
 tions have been confined within their intended limits. 
 In 1828 the price of wheat was 755. In 1830 
 this House was four nights occupied in discussing 
 the distress of the nation, and the distresses of agri- 
 culturists were then chiefly dwelt upon. In 1831 
 three millions of quarters of wheat were imported, 
 owing to the rise of price. In 1833 Committees sat 
 in both Houses of Parliament to inquire into the dis- 
 tress of the agricultural classes ; and they resulted in 
 further advantages extended to these classes at the 
 expense of the community. In 1835 Committees 
 were again appointed with the same object. In 1836 
 the price of wheat was 365. ; which, to say the least 
 of it, is 45. below what the most gloomy prophets 
 against Free Trade have ever expected as the conse- 
 
38 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 quence of opening our ports to foreign competition. 
 The price now is 55s. per quarter, and the duty pay- 
 able upon every quarter m bond is 30s. ; and if the 
 crops are short this year, we shall once more have 
 importations, and a year after, the unparalleled dis- 
 tress of the farmers will be once more the subject of 
 inquiry. 
 
 And this is the Act which it is pretended exists 
 for the good of the farmer ! What is to be thought 
 of the morality of any man who knowing that steadi- 
 ness of prices is more than any other circumstance 
 essential to the well-being of the farmer, will stand 
 up to-night and plead the farmer's interest as the 
 pretext for the Corn Laws? The farmer, forsooth! 
 who is deluded into giving a high rent for land 
 upon the faith of a promise that is not fulfilled, 
 nor ever attempted to be. The law professes to 
 assure him of what is termed a remunerating price ; 
 that j^rice is assumed by the landlord with reference 
 to rent ; and upon the faith of obtaiaing it, the 
 farmer engages to pay what is demanded for the land. 
 But all that the law does in fulfilment of its promise 
 to the farmer is to adopt one means of maintainuig 
 the price of the produce of this country: namely, to 
 exclude the produce of foreign countries coming into 
 competition with our own. It does nothing effectually 
 to secure to the farmer a remunerating price, which 
 could be done only by limiting the quantity brought 
 into the market. It takes no precaution against 
 abundant harvests ; nor does it dare aUow the farmer 
 the full benefit of a bad harvest. It makes no calcu- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 39 
 
 lation of the difference between the soils of England 
 and the soils of Ireland, which latter are less exhausted 
 than those of this country. It does not prevent the 
 influence of quantity on price increased by importation 
 from the colonies with a low fixed duty ; nor the effect 
 of agricultural improvements. Yet all these things 
 tend to disappoint the farmer of the expectation 
 created by the law, and upon the faith of which he 
 has made his contract with the owners of the land. 
 What matters it, then, to him by what he is ruined, 
 if ruin is to be his fate ? And his fate it must be so long 
 as he calculates upon fixed or steady prices, and agrees 
 for his land upon that expectation raised under the 
 present law. 
 
 I have no hesitation in saying that the result to 
 be expected from the existing regulations with re- 
 spect to the trade in grain is uncertainty in quantity 
 and unsteadiness of price, and that it would be diffi- 
 cult to devise a scheme more exactly calculated for 
 effecting that result than the present Corn Laws. 
 From the nature of his capital, no class of capitalist 
 has more reason to complain of them than the 
 farmer. It cannot be pretended that his mterests 
 are not identical with those of other capitalists who 
 depend for their profit upon the proportion which 
 their returns bear to their outgoing. He will not 
 be allowed to obtain more than the average rate of 
 profits ; and the certainty of obtaining what he 
 expects is aU that he desires. If he obtains more, 
 the landlord instantly demands of him a higher rent ; 
 if he obtains less, he falls in arrear with his landlord 
 
40 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 and becomes distressed. All, therefore, that he cares 
 for, is to obtain the same return for his capital that 
 he might expect in any other emplojnnent of it ; but 
 on this, at present, he never can prudently reckon. 
 And what could a landlord reply to an intelligent 
 farmer who should teU him this, and aver that he, as 
 a farmer, had no interest in high prices ; that he was 
 neither richer nor more secure because he kept his 
 servants, fed his horses, and sowed his land with 
 grain obtained at great cost ; and that if Monopoly 
 tended to raise the price of produce, this increased 
 value was given to land which would benefit the 
 owner of that land alone ? I trust that every 
 land-owner who pleads this evening for these Laws 
 on behalf of the farmer will show exphcitly in 
 what way he considers they advantage him. The 
 farmer certainly has an interest in a high rate of 
 profit ; but this is an interest which he shares with 
 every other capitalist in the country, and an interest 
 that every capitalist in the country is deprived of by 
 means of the Corn Laws, which increase the cost of 
 all production and limit the field for the employment 
 of all capital. 
 
 But do the Corn Laws find an excuse in any 
 advantage afforded to the agricultural labourers ? 
 Has their condition been raised by them, or have 
 they been rendered happy and contented by their 
 operation ? If so, when ? Not, surely, in 1830 
 when the great body of the peasantry were dependent 
 for support on parochial relief, though the Corn Laws 
 of that day had already existed for fifteen years ; and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 41 
 
 when Special Commissions were trying the labourers 
 for riot and disorder and urging the destruction of 
 machinery, and the labourers were alleging in their 
 excuse the worst that could befall them from the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws — the want of employment, 
 which they ascribed to the use of machinery? 
 
 But who ever heard of this solicitude for the labourer, 
 which we are told is the motive of the Corn Laws, 
 when labour could be saved by the use of machines ? 
 How little should we heed the ploughman's remon- 
 strance could we to-morrow apply steam power to 
 the tUlage of the soil ! What lectures, indeed, would 
 not be read to the labourers upon the ignorance of 
 their interest should they wish us to forego its use ! 
 
 Or, again, what is to be thought of the alleged 
 care for the labouring man manifested by the Corn 
 Laws, when we entirely prohibit the importation of 
 annual food, which is unconnected with the employ- 
 ment of agricultural labour, but which, from its price 
 at home, now places meat beyond the labourer's 
 reach ? 
 
 If the landed interest, then, be fairly analyzed, 
 Avhat do we find ? That two-thirds of its parts have 
 no permanent or positive interest in the continuance 
 of the Corn Laws, and that it is the land-owner alone 
 who profits by their existence. 
 
 To the land-owners, then, we must now turn to 
 reheve the country from a serious evil and them- 
 selves from a serious imputation. And here I wiU 
 neither pretend that they would not suffer by the 
 change, nor undertake to show (though it might easily 
 
42 PREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 be shown) that they greatly overrate the loss they 
 would incur, and that they would still receive a 
 great price for their land if it were devoted to other 
 uses than much of it is at present. I claim the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws upon far higher grounds : I 
 regard the Corn Laws as an enormous wrong, and I 
 demand their repeal as the people's right. 
 
 And I really advise the great proprietors of this 
 country to reflect upon the course they are pursuing 
 in resisting this demand. Let them, after reviewing 
 the history of this country and regarding its pro- 
 spects, consider their present position in it. Let 
 them as politicians judge of the wisdom of adhering 
 to laws passed for the advancement of their own 
 interest, and opposed to the interest, and by the 
 intelligence, of all other people. It may not be a 
 flattering reflection to them that their position in the 
 country grew up at a period and out of circumstances 
 when the country was far less civilized than it is at 
 present ; but it is true. In proportion as intelligence 
 has increased, and information of all kinds has been 
 diffused, and the intercourse between men facflitated, 
 their influence derived from territorial possession 
 has declined. And as the sources of public improve- 
 ment cannot now be checked ; as the press must be 
 free ; as education must even be supported by them ; 
 as the difi"erent parts of the community must become 
 more identified in feeling— it will be well for them 
 to consider whether they can now depend upon other 
 than moral means for preserving their influence in 
 the country ; whether they are not more likely them- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 43 
 
 selves to be brought further within the control of 
 public opinion than to guide the judgment of the 
 people by the mere exercise of political power ; 
 whether, in a word, they can hope any longer to 
 suppress popular feehng upon any question merely 
 by majorities of this House in favour of their own 
 interest on one side with argument and common good 
 on the other. 
 
 For purposes of delusion, this question of the 
 Corn Laws has been confounded with other questions 
 on which men have diifered much : with questions 
 regarding changes in the Constitution for example. 
 But surely there is a difference between a question of 
 laws unsound in principle, discredited by experience 
 and denounced by authority, and a question of measures 
 that depend on speculation for the advantages that 
 they promise ! The only connection between such 
 questions is that an unjust resistance to the one is 
 the strongest recommendation for an experiment of 
 the other. 
 
 Indeed, I am satisfied that if it were our mis- 
 fortune that the peace and security of this country 
 should now be disturbed by any popular commotion, 
 and that such commotion were connected with the 
 present Com Laws, posterity regarding calmly the 
 object and effect of these Laws, would ascribe all 
 the blame of such disaster to those who have passed 
 fmd maintained them. 
 
 We know how in this day we judge of those 
 conflicts between power and justice recorded in our 
 history how ready we are to side with the popular 
 
44 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 party of the period, whether in the struggle against 
 Privilege of 1641, or that against superstition of 1688; 
 and how we regard the monstrous privileges of the 
 French nobility as having justified as well as caused 
 the Revolution in France. And yet I will venture to 
 say that none of the oppressions in those times were 
 more acutely felt by intelligent and patriotic men 
 than the Corn Laws are felt by the corresponding 
 class at present. Nor can it be expected that such 
 feelings can be widely entertained for any length of 
 time without the occurrence of some circumstance 
 that will lead to their disclosure. 
 
 Commercial liberty is now as essential to the 
 well-being of this country as civil and religious 
 liberty have been considered to be in former times. 
 Victories have been fought for and won in the course 
 of each of these, and no one now dares to deny the 
 right of the cominunity to either. It therefore be- 
 comes every public man who seeks reform for public 
 good, to devote all his energies to procure for his 
 country the emancipation of its industry ; and to 
 win for its hard-working people freedom to fulfil 
 the design of nature, by exchanging with their fellovi'- 
 men in other countries the fruits of their respective 
 labours. Thus he wiU. aff"ord to them individually the 
 best prospect of adequate reward for their toil, and 
 to the nation generally that of peace and permanent 
 prosperity. 
 
 I now move : That the House resolve itself into 
 a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of 
 taking into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV, c. 60, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 45 
 
 relating to the importation of corn. And I beg to 
 add that though I am friendly to a repeal of the Corn 
 Laws, I have thus shaped my Motion in order that no 
 person, unless he be a friend to these Laws, may 
 find a pretext to abstain from supporting it. 
 
46 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 II.' 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, February 19, 1839. 
 
 At the close of 1838 the Manchester Anti-Corn-Law Association was 
 formed. At the commencement of 1839, the distress in the country being 
 on the increase, meetings attended by delegates from Manchester, Birming- 
 ham, Glasgow and other great manufacturing towns, were held in London 
 to consider what steps should be taken in the matter. Discontent was 
 publicly expressed on the opening of Parliament at the omission of all 
 reference to the Corn Laws in the Queen's Speech ; and on Feb. 7 Mr. 
 Villiers gave notice in the House of Commons of a, Motion that evidence 
 on the operation of the Corn Laws should be heard at the Bar. Lord J. 
 Eussell created a sensation by declaring that it would be his duty to oppose 
 the Motion. On Feb. 18 Lord Brougham presented in the House of Lords 
 several petitions against the Corn Laws, and moved that they be referred 
 to a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of taking evidence on 
 the matter thereof. The Motion was negatived without a division. On 
 the following day, Feb. 19, Mr. Villiers, after presenting a number of 
 petitions for the repeal of the Corn Laws, brought forward his Motion, 
 ' That J. B. Smith, Robert Hyde Greg, and others, be heard at the Bar of this 
 House .... in support of the allegations of their petition presented to 
 the House on the 15th inst. complaining of the operation of the Com Laws.' 
 One night only was given to the discussion, and after Sir Robert Peel had 
 stated his belief that the repeal of the Corn Laws would be grossly unjust 
 to the agriculturists and that he should give a decided negative to it, 
 the Motion was rejected by 361 to 172. 
 
 If in rising to move the Question of which I have 
 given notice I do not apologise to the House for my 
 incompetence for the task that has devolved upon 
 me, I hope the House will consider that it is rather 
 from a regard for their time than from any confidence 
 
 ' ' . . . Mr. "\^illiers's speech that night was not lost. It was a state- 
 ment of singular force and clearness ; and the occasion was destined to 
 great celebrity. . . . On that night he assumed his post undisputed as 
 the head authority in the Legislature on the subject of the Corn Laws.' 
 
 Martineau, History of the Feme. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 47 
 
 in myself or want of respect to tTiem ; for I can un- 
 aflfectedly assure the House that nothing would have 
 induced me to have engaged in this task had I not 
 been convinced by those whose interests are involved 
 in the Question that its success depends simply on a 
 statement of its merits, and not upon the ability or 
 talent of any advocate. 
 
 These men have approached the House in the 
 spirit of men of business, and I trust that the present 
 discussion may be conducted in the spirit in which the 
 petitioners come before it. Certainly nothing that I 
 shall say, nothing that I shall address to the House, 
 shall afford any one an example of a deviation from 
 this course. 
 
 In accordance with the Notice that I have given, 
 I have now to move that certain persons who have 
 petitioned this House be allowed to prove the allega- 
 tions of their petition at the Bar of the House. Who 
 these persons are, what it is that they allege and are 
 prepared to prove, and on what ground it is that they 
 have been induced to make this application, I will 
 as briefly and concisely as I am able now proceed to 
 state. 
 
 Deeply interested in the subject-matter of the 
 petition themselves, the petitioners have been selected 
 by their fellow- citizens and fellow-suiFerers assembled 
 at great public meetings for the purpose, to make 
 known to this House by all legitimate means in their 
 power the specific grievance of which they complain ; 
 and they bring their complaint chiefly from those vast 
 districts of industry in this countiy where the mass 
 
48 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 of the inhabitants depending for existence upon the 
 employment of their labour, expect that employment 
 as much from the people of other countries as from 
 their countrymen around them. The names of some 
 places whence these petitions proceed wUl make their 
 interests known to the House. They are as follows : 
 Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, 
 Derby, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, the Tower 
 Hamlets, Kendal, &c. — which wUl be at once recog- 
 nized as the seats of the great staple manufactures 
 of the country, and the sum of whose population is 
 above 2,000,000. 
 
 And here the House will not, I trust, object to 
 my referring for one moment with particularity to the 
 importance of some of these interests to the country : 
 I will refer only to the special interests of those who 
 have the most reason to apprehend danger to them- 
 selves from the grievance of which they complain: 
 namely, the Cotton Trade, the Linen Trade, the 
 Woollen Trade, and the Hardware Trade. 
 
 According to the most authentic estimates I find 
 that on the Cotton Manufacture of this country not 
 fewer than 1,500,000 persons depend for their sup- 
 port ; that the amount of capital employed in it 
 amounts to 20,000,000/. ; that the annual value of the 
 manufacture is about 34,000,000/. ; and that our export 
 of this manufacture to other countries is about two- 
 sevenths in value and three-fourths in quantity. 
 
 In the Woollen Trade, the annual value is about 
 27,000,000/., of which about one quarter is exported; 
 the number of persons employed is nearly 400,000, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 49 
 
 receiving in wages about 8,750,000^. ; and consum- 
 ing 108,000,000 lbs. of English wool. 
 
 The product of the Linen Manufacture is about 
 8,000,000?., and wages about 3,500,000?. 
 
 Hardware and Cutlery, value about 17,000,000/.; 
 and the people employed number 300,000. The 
 prosperity of the latter trade depends upon the foreign 
 demand. 
 
 In all the principal districts where these manu- 
 factures are carried on, large and open meetings have 
 been held for the purpose of affirming the allegations 
 of this petition ; and in nearly all the strongest 
 wish has been manifested and expressed that more 
 attention should be devoted to them by this House 
 than is usually given by it. I have thought it right 
 to describe the importance of the great interests 
 specified in order to convince Hon. Members that it 
 is no insignificant party that is at present asking 
 attention of the Legislature. 
 
 And now I come to what the petitioners allege 
 and what they pray you to be allowed to prove at 
 your Bar. And here let me ask the House to distin- 
 guish between what they do allege and what they 
 may be said to allege. They say that of late years 
 they have had to observe a striking change in the 
 character of their dealings with nations on whose 
 custom they used to depend ; and that once valuable 
 friends have now become alarming rivals. And they 
 say something more : they say that you are to blame 
 for this. In plain terms they say that the Legislature 
 having denied to them the liberty of exchanging then' 
 
 VOL. I. E 
 
50 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 manufactures with otter countries for the articles 
 those countries have in excess and are anxious to 
 offer in exchange — namely, human food, has com- 
 pelled those other countries to divert their resources 
 from the production of food in order to satisfy their 
 own demand for manufactures. And this you have 
 done through the Corn Laws, which have not only 
 turned away our customers but having converted 
 those customers into competitors there is reason to 
 apprehend that they will ultimately render us unequal 
 to the struggle. 
 
 The points, therefore, which the petitioners on 
 behalf of the great manufacturing interests of this 
 country have to prove are : that there is a most active 
 competition going on in other countries of the world ; 
 that this has been chiefly occasioned and is now 
 greatly favoured by the Corn Laws ; and that should 
 it extend in a ratio proportionate to that which it has 
 reached already, the results will be prejudicial to the 
 country at large and peculiarly so to the productive 
 or working classes whose condition will be either that 
 of a serious deterioration or destitution. 
 
 They do not in their petition ask you to repeal 
 these Laws ; nor do they ask you to say why you will 
 not repeal them ; but, because consequences important 
 to them which follow from the Corn Laws, and he- 
 cause the facts that prove these to be true do not 
 necessarily fall within the notice of a majority of this 
 House, nor are admitted by many of you to be true, 
 they ask you to be allowed to place the facts beyond 
 doubt. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 51 
 
 There is nothing, as they say, that takes their 
 case out of the range of distinct and specific proof, 
 and there is nothing to preclude them from complet- 
 ing their case within a very limited period. They 
 have only to repeat to this House the experience that 
 has been forced upon them, which experience they 
 hope if known to you will have some weight in your 
 judgment when you are called upon to decide the 
 general question. 
 
 They do not come here to allege or detail stories 
 of general distress ; they do not come here to excite 
 your compassion at their losses ; or to excite the pas- 
 sions of the people at their wrongs : they come here 
 simply to apprize you of the indications of coming 
 evUs which by their effect upon their interests they 
 have been obliged to know ; which, though they may 
 be the first to feel them, will, if disregarded, necessarily 
 be ultimately shared by millions of the people ; but 
 which if attended to in season may be averted. 
 
 I will state what I believe to be within the pos- 
 sibility of proof. In the first place, I wUl prove that 
 the tariff of duties that has been imposed by dif- 
 ferent countries in order to foster manufactures, and 
 by which our manufactures are in some cases ex- 
 cluded and in others much prejudiced on account of 
 the added price, was only unposed after repeated 
 remonstrances by the Governments of those countries 
 against our own restrictive system ; that for twenty 
 years past in the North of Europe and befoi'e the 
 year 1824 in America, the laws that restrict and 
 sometimes prohibit the trade in food have been the 
 
52 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 constant theme of complaint by those countries that 
 had food to offer us in exchange ; and that both 
 Germany and America, where our rivals are now 
 most prosperous, say : ' Take our corn and we will 
 take your manufactures.' 
 
 This has been the basis on which they have always 
 desired to negotiate ; and, furthermore, so averse were 
 the people of those countries to refuse our manufac- 
 tures at first that the Governments could only recon- 
 cile them to the endurance of retaliatory tariffs by 
 representing to them the mischievousness and selfish- 
 ness of our policy in refusing to take their food, as- 
 suming that they could not manufacture for them- 
 selves. The official journals of those countries teem 
 with abuse of us on this ground. 
 
 For the first great step taken by our rivals in 
 becoming manufacturing people in rivalry with our- 
 selves under every disadvantage that the circum- 
 stances of our neighbourhood and established supe- 
 riority placed them, we must distinctly and without 
 question refer to the Corn Laws. And aU that we 
 have lost in employment and profit, and ui good 
 wiU with those people, we must distinctly place 
 at the door of those Laws. But it is not in the 
 nature of the Corn Laws to be limited in their mis- 
 chief ; it is inherent in the operation of the system, 
 whUe it deprives us of our customers and makes 
 them our rivals, to give them at the same time an 
 advantage in competition ; for they not only have 
 the benefit of price added ia the amount of duty that 
 they impose upon our goods, but they have also the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 53 
 
 benefit of our being obliged in all matters in which 
 the cost of living enters into the cost of production, 
 to live at a far higher rate than they are enabled to. 
 And your petitioners now seek to show that those 
 people have seized the advantage that we conferred 
 upon them ; and that in all the articles of manu- 
 facture into which the price of living enters into the 
 cost of production they are now employing them- 
 selves in competition with us. This is no general 
 and vague statement. They are ready here to specify 
 the countries where this has occurred ; to describe 
 the very articles in which it has been observed ; and 
 to verify what they allege to have been the cause of 
 the change. They will prove that in some countries 
 the difference in the cost of living that the Corn Laws 
 occasion, enables the people of those countries to 
 supply themselves with articles that we used formerly 
 to supply ; and this in order to compete with others 
 in neutral countries. 
 
 And here we must come to the facts that your 
 petitioners most desire to draw attention to ; for it 
 is not difficult to hear persons who have no interests 
 involved in this matter prejudge the case by assum- 
 ing that, whatever burdens are imposed upon the 
 people, such is the effect of British skill and enter- 
 prise that they must be beyond the reach of foreign 
 competition. 
 
 The first fact that I will mention to show that 
 our ascendency may be endangered, is that our exports 
 taken upon an average of the last five years compared 
 with the average of the five years after the peace, 
 
54 FREE TKADE SPEECHES. 
 
 are only 20 per cent, more than they were at the 
 former period. Now though there may he some 
 dispute as to the value of the currency at the dif- 
 ferent periods, and granted that the exports are sta- 
 tionary, yet the question arises, why with all our 
 superiority and advantage over other manufacturing 
 people, have we not kept pace with the increased 
 demand of the world ? If our Export Trade has 
 diminished or remained stationary, has the same 
 been the case with other countries ? We find on the 
 contrary that the exports of France have increased 
 50 per cent, and those of the United States 75 per 
 cent. 
 
 But, descending from generals to particulars, let 
 us see how far the Cotton Trade enables us to illus- 
 trate this position ; for when we have seen what 
 hangs upon this gigantic business and the fearful 
 consequences of its loss to the country, the facts con- 
 nected with it must bg of the deepest concern. The 
 primary thing to observe is that from 1770 to 1814 
 England had the Monopoly of the Cotton Trade : we 
 had nothing to apprehend in competition from any 
 country at the end of the war. America owing to a 
 previous error in our policy had perhaps made the 
 most advance in it ; and what did she consume ? 
 Barely 100 bales. What is now the case ? America 
 at present consumes 320,000 bales ; France 350,000 ; 
 Switzerland 50,000 ; and all other countries 150,000: 
 total, 870,000 bales, which is nearly equal to the 
 total consumption of all England. 
 
 This will show that though we had the Monopoly 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 55 
 
 little more than twenty years ago we have not main- 
 tained it. It shows further that other countries have 
 been able to stand their ground and are fairly 
 launched in the world in competition with us, and 
 that we have now to consider, not whether we shall 
 retain a Monopoly; but whether we are in a condition 
 to run an equal race ; and it is for those who contend 
 that we are still destined to excel, to account for the 
 reason why other countries should have increased in 
 a greater ratio than ourselves ; and how it is that we 
 are to maintain our superiority if we do not proceed 
 upon equal grounds. 
 
 Here it becomes us to consider that if we have to 
 compete with others we must be on equal terms with 
 them ; for on equal competition at least we must 
 reckon in future, and in order to effect it we must first 
 institute a comparison between ourselves and other 
 countries engaged in the same trade. 
 
 In turning to America, we find her possessed of 
 two great advantages : proximity to the raw material 
 and cheap and abundant motive power. These have 
 been made the subject of precise estimate. We find 
 that proximity to the raw material gives them an 
 advantage over us equal to 7 per cent., while the 
 difference in their water power compared with our 
 steam power is as 3'10 to 12"10 per horse. Now 
 under these circumstances what should we expect 
 from the United States entering into competition 
 with us and imposing a duty upon our goods ? Why 
 that in all those articles in which the raw material 
 enters she will have an advantage. These are her 
 
56 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 natural advantages. What are those that we confer 
 upon her ? "We tax our raw cotton, we enhance the 
 price of flour, a vast amount of which is used in the 
 manufacture of cotton, and by our Corn Laws we 
 render the cost of living greater than in any other 
 country in the world. 
 
 Let us examine the results of this. Such has 
 been the stride that America has made in the Cotton 
 Manufacture, that she consumes as much now as 
 we did in 1816, and she has been increasing in a 
 greater ratio than ourselves in the proportion of 65 
 to 40 per cent. We employ about 100,000 power- 
 looms ; she has now, accordmg to a report made to 
 Congress, about 50,000 chiefly devoted to the coarser 
 fabrics, which is about the number we have ourselves 
 for the same purpose. 
 
 Next let us hear what the general merchants and 
 agents abroad say of the progress she has made in 
 competition with us since we tempted her to become 
 our rival. For this end I will refer to a work which 
 has been published with the authority of the manu- 
 facturers of Glasgow, who answer for the truth of 
 its statements, and which contains evidence taken 
 on oath under circumstances deserving of full credit, 
 Mr. Kempton, a manufacturer of Massachusetts, was 
 examined in this country and was asked : — 
 
 Could the American goods be offered at a lower price than 
 the English goods ? — Yes ; I have understood that we have sent 
 goods to India, where we pay an extra duty, and still undersell 
 the English. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 57 
 
 The same witness was examined before the 
 Factory Commissioners : — 
 
 What is the nature of your manufactures ? — Spinning and 
 weaving coarse yarn. 
 
 Is any of it for exportation ? — Yes. 
 
 To what markets ? — South America, West and East Indian 
 markets. 
 
 Do you find that you can compete successfully with British 
 manufactures of a similar kind in the same market ? — Yes, 
 although we labour under some disadvantages. 
 
 And notwithstanding these drawbacks you can compete with 
 us ? — Yes ; and not only so, but are gaining gromid upon you, 
 and have already excluded you from some markets. 
 
 From what markets ? — Some of the Mexican and South 
 American. Several of our largest establishments have large 
 contracts pending for a long time forward for those markets, at 
 prices which would not give a fair return to the British manufac- 
 turer, but are very profitable to our manufacturers. 
 
 You say this from having ascertained, during your visit to 
 Manchester and other manufacturing districts in this country, 
 the exact state of the relative prices ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Timothy Wiggin, an American largely con- 
 nected with the United States by business, and also 
 interested in the cotton manufacture there, was 
 asked : — 
 
 Have you been many years engaged in the cotton manufac- 
 ture ? — I took an interest in those manufactures many years 
 since. 
 
 Has the cotton manufacture in the United States prospered 
 of late years ? — It has, it is now prosperous. 
 
 Do you think there is any probability of their being able to 
 compete with us in any articles in a third market ? — The manu- 
 facturers of certain descriptions of cotton goods find a ready 
 demand for their fabrics in South America, and also at Smyrna 
 and Constantinople. 
 
 Is that the particular description of manufacture in which 
 you are engaged ? — It is. 
 
58 FEEE TBADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Mr. Joshua Bates, an American manufacturer, 
 and also a partner of Messrs. Baring Brothers, gave 
 his evidence : — 
 
 Do you know whether the returns of the cotton manufactures 
 of the United States have of late been profitable, or not t — I have 
 various means of learning that the cotton manufactures are pro- 
 fitable. 
 
 That the capital invested in the cotton manufacture, some 
 few years ago, has yielded a fair return 1 — It has. 
 
 Is there not a considerable export from the United States of 
 America of manufactured cotton 1 — There is an exportation which 
 has been very considerable of common coarse cottons. 
 
 You are aware that America possesses all the resources and 
 elements necessary to become a manufacturing country m a 
 very superior degree ? — Undoubtedly she does. 
 
 And that all the improvements and inventions existing in 
 European countries will, and do, find their way into the United 
 States ? — Certamly. 
 
 Mr. William Graham of Glasgow, a manufacturer, 
 was also examined : — 
 
 Do you find any foreign competition that affects profits ? — Yes, 
 we find now in all foreign markets a competition in our stouter 
 fabrics by the American manufacturers. 
 
 What description of goods do you make ? — Principally the 
 heavy domestic fabrics. 
 
 Do they meet you in the East Indian market ?— Yes ; within 
 the last twelve months we have heard of their being brought into 
 the market of Calcutta, and underselling our goods even there, 
 where they pay an extra duty. 
 
 Do the Americans export those manufactures considerably ?— 
 They do. 
 
 Do you find the competition of the American manufactures 
 increasing upon you in the places to which you export?— 
 Everywhere. 
 
 In what parts of the world ? — In Mexico, for the last five or 
 six years, largely ; in the Brazils considerably ; Buenos Ayres, 
 round Cape Horn, at Valparaiso, considerably. In Manilla and 
 Singapore they have also made their appearance; also at St. 
 Domingo. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 59 
 
 Do they come into competition witli you in the Mediterranean, 
 or in the German markets ? — We have done little in the Mediter- 
 ranean for some years. At one time we had complaint from 
 Malta that the American manufacturers had interfered with our 
 
 Mr. Kirkman Finlay of Glasgow, a British 
 manufacturer, was likewise a witness : — 
 
 Are you aware of the progress within the last few years of the 
 cotton manufacture in the United States of America ? — I have 
 seen a great deal of correspondence upon the subject. 
 
 Has it not increased very much in the last ten years ? — It has 
 grown up since 1814. 
 
 Are you aware whether there is or is not an export trade 
 in manufactured cotton from the United States ? — I am aware 
 there is. 
 
 Are you aware to what countries domestics are exported from 
 America ? — They have been trying them in all countries. They 
 are a very active, industrious, and enterprising people, and there 
 is scarcely any country they visit where they do not take some 
 of them. I should say, from my own knowledge, especially 
 in Turkey and South America, and I have understood they have 
 taken some to India. 
 
 Looking at the United States, with reference to its advantages 
 or disadvantages, it is your impression that nothing can prevent 
 the progress, more or less rapid, of the manufacture in that country ? 
 — Clearly. I think nothing will withdraw them from that manu- 
 facture ; that it will increase more or less rapidly, according to 
 circumstances ; and that it will be formidable. 
 
 The next witness, Mr. Wm. Gemmell, gave his 
 evidence on oath, and it is peculiarly striking, be- 
 cause besides having his own establishment in Val- 
 paraiso he also spun and wove by power his own 
 domestics in Glasgow. He deposed that for several 
 years past he had been in the habit of manufacturing 
 cotton domestics, a class of cotton goods of more 
 extensive consumption than any other sent to ChUi ; 
 
60 FKEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 and that, latterly, he had been obliged to abandon 
 the manufacture of such goods, after persevermg for 
 a considerable time in an unsuccessful competition 
 with the manufacture of the United States, although 
 he combined in his own works both the operations of 
 spinning the yarn and weaving it, which enabled him 
 to ship his goods at the lowest possible cost in this 
 country ; and although he also had the advantage of 
 having them sold by his own partners abroad. 
 
 I will not detain the House with other evidence 
 on this subject, though I may say that the work to 
 which I refer— a work published to show the im- 
 policy of the Cotton Tax — is replete with evidence 
 to the effect that the cotton manufactures in America 
 are gradually progressing and coming into neutral 
 countries in competition with us. 
 
 There is one more witness, however, who states a 
 fact which, as it bears upon this question, I wiU repeat. 
 The witness, a Glasgow manufacturer acquainted with 
 the American market, was asked : — 
 
 Do you conceive there are any other burdens in this country 
 affecting you, the absence of which in America enables their 
 manufactures to come into competition with you ? — Yes ; there 
 is another direct duty which comes heavily upon us, and that is 
 the duty upon foreign wheat and flour used in our manufactures. 
 
 What do you sixppose is the increased cost to your manufac- 
 tory arising from the duty on flour ? — I should think we pay in 
 duty on flour 6001. to 7001. a year. 
 
 To which is appended this note : — 
 
 The extra annual cost during the ten years prior to 1882, of 
 the British cotton manufacture, for flour used in weaving and 
 bleaching, above what the same quantity would have cost the 
 
HOUSE or COMMONS. 61 
 
 manufacturers of the Unitecl States and the contment of Europe, 
 estimated according to the ratio of the difference of the average 
 prices of wheat in these countries and in Great Britain, comes out 
 at 175,000Z. 
 
 What I have stated here shows that the Americans 
 are very active rivals, and that we cannot afford to 
 fetter oiirselves in competition with them. 
 
 We now turn to the Continent to see what 
 is doing there that is to set us at ease with respect 
 to competition. And first let us see what a country 
 wanting in the greatest degree in our local advantages 
 for the import of the raw material is able to effect. I 
 allude to Switzerland, which is 800 miles from the 
 coast ; but where, with the natural advantage of water 
 power, living is cheap, the raw material is not taxed, 
 and the necessaries for manufacture are not artifi- 
 cially enhanced. We find that though formerly we 
 supplied her with goods and yarns, she now takes 
 but little from us, and only the finest description of 
 goods ; and that not only does she supply herself, 
 but that she also exports three-quarters of what she 
 produces, and meets us successfully in the Italian, 
 Levant, and North American markets. 
 
 Not to weary the House with reading more ex- 
 tracts than are necessary — though I could draw 
 abundantly from books that I have with me — I 
 will undertake to say that these facts will be proved 
 at the Bar. 
 
 Let us now turn to countries whose raw products 
 we refuse to take ; to Russia, for example, on whose 
 corn and timber we place high duties ; and what do 
 
62 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 we find ? In 1820 we exported to Eussia 13,000,000 
 yards of cotton clotli ; in 1837, 850,000 yards. 
 Really, when we have a case of this sort, I wish 
 people would pause to reflect on all the misery that 
 would have been spared, and all the wealth that 
 would have been saved, had we been labouring ia 
 this country to supply goods and receiving corn in 
 exchange. If any man seriously reflected upon the 
 distress that he has witnessed since the Peace, and 
 considered how much might have been avoided by the 
 employment of labour, he would come to a decision 
 in this case with more anxiety than some are disposed 
 to do. 
 
 Let us next look to the German exporters of 
 goods that give employment to labour, whom we 
 have so especially driven to be manufacturers and 
 who have had the advantage of our high cost of 
 living and their duties upon our goods. In 1833 
 the yards of cotton cloth exported in Germany 
 were 29,531,352 ; in 1834, 11,045,112 ; m 1835, 
 10,037,100 ; in 1836, 7,673,020; in 1837, 5,889,957; 
 and in 1838 only 5,562,333. And what consola- 
 tion is it to us that our exports to that country are 
 swelled by the export of articles that enable other 
 countries to manufacture the goods that we used to 
 export, when we know that there is no reason why 
 they should not manufacture these goods in a few 
 years as well as ourselves ? 
 
 But, perhaps, to show what can be achieved by a 
 country on the Continent in competition with us in 
 our present burdened state, I may notice the case of 
 
HOUSE OP COMMONS. 63 
 
 the Hosiery Trade, as this is the best in answer to 
 all the speculations on the inability of the people 
 of the Continent to equal the English in the pro- 
 ductiveness of their labour. We find that though 
 the machinery in the Hosiery Trade in England has 
 increased 10 per cent., the machinery in Saxony has 
 doubled every six years ; that though at the Peace 
 we had the Monopoly of the world in this Trade, in 
 1838 the export of England was only 447,291 dozen 
 pairs of hose, while that of Saxony was 1,500,000. 
 Moreover, whUe we have not increased our exports 
 for the last nine years, those of the Saxons to the 
 United States are as follows : the exports from the 
 Hans Towns into the United States in 1827 were 
 valued at 96,821 dollars; in 1835 they had increased 
 to 414,718 dollars: that is, more than 300 per cent, 
 increase in the nine years. The comparative exports 
 to the Havannah present much the same disparity. 
 British exports into the whole foreign West India 
 Islands including Cuba were in 1838, 21,270 dozen 
 pairs ; the exports of Saxon hosiery from the 
 Hans Towns to Cuba alone were in 1838, 69,027 
 dozen pairs. The exports of British hosiery to Peru 
 in 1827 were 29,810/. ; m 1831, 19,605Z. ; m 1832, 
 16,918/. ; in 1833, 12,400/. ; m 1834, 8,760/. sterling. 
 All ports open equally to both present much the 
 same decrease. And now the Saxons export to the 
 United States alone more hosiery than we export 
 from G-reat Britain altogether. But there is one fact 
 in connection with this matter more startling perhaps 
 than any other : though the Saxon hosiery comes 
 
64 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 into this country at an additional expense of 25 per 
 cent., it actually undersells our own hosieries. 
 
 Now, if this be the case already in one branch of 
 the Cotton Trade, I want to know why it is not to 
 be the case in any other ? It proves that there 
 is nothing that incapacitates foreigners from com- 
 peting with or excelling us, and it shows that they 
 are acting with an advantage over us. What has 
 been alleged of the Cotton Trade I fear may be said 
 , of every other branch of trade ; foreigners are en- 
 gaging with success in all of them in competition 
 with ourselves, and it depends upon the advantages 
 we respectively have whether we are able to maintain 
 our ground. For there is this peculiarity about 
 manufactures, whoever produces the cheapest must 
 command the markets of the world. 
 
 The WooUen Trade and the Linen Trade afford 
 the same evidence : foreigners are now manufacturers 
 in both trades ; they are dispensing more each year 
 with imported manufactured articles than formerly ; 
 and they demand from us chiefly the materials of 
 manufacture. The following statement I will read 
 to the House, as having been drawn up by one of 
 the persons most extensively engaged in the Woollen 
 Trade : — 
 
 The woollen manufacture of England has already suffered 
 materially, and is threatened with still more serious injury, from 
 the competition of continental rivals. In proof of which the fol- 
 lowing facts are offered : — 
 
 1. Until a few years ago, the English wool-buyers at the great 
 German wool fairs predominated so much in number, and in the 
 extent of their purchases, over the buyers of other comitries, as 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 65 
 
 to rule the prices ; but within the last few years the German 
 and Belgian buyers have exceeded them in their purchases, being 
 able, from the flourishing state of their manufactures, to afford 
 a higher price for the article, and the English buyers are now 
 regarded as of small comparative importance. 
 
 2. The exceedingly rapid growth of the woollen manufacture in 
 Prussia, and the other countries of the German Commercial 
 League, is shown by the fact that, five or six years since, the 
 quantity of German woollen cloths exhibited for sale at the 
 Leipsic fair was only 50,000 ends (an end being half a piece), 
 whereas last year the quantity exhibited was 850,000 ends, 
 being an increase of 600 per cent. 
 
 3. That, uidependent of the duty laid on Bnghsh cloths in 
 Germany, Prussian cloths are sold much cheaper than Enghsh. 
 EngUsh fine woollens are already excluded from Germany and 
 from several neutral markets ; and as soon as the Prussians can 
 sufficiently extend their manufacture — which they are doing with 
 astonishing rapidity — they will beat the English in all neutral 
 markets, and probably in the home market of England itself, not- 
 withstanding the import duty on foreign woollens in this comitry. 
 
 4. That the increase in the continental manufacture of wool 
 is shown by the fact, that foreigners purchase a very uicreasing 
 quantity of the wools of England and Ireland, of which formerly 
 the home manufacturer had the exclusive use. The export of 
 British wool in 1838 was of the declared value of 432,000Z. ; 
 whereas the average of the four years preceding was only 
 274,000Z. This, therefore, shows an increase of 57 per cent, in 
 the exportation from Great Britain of the raw material of the 
 wooUen manufacture. 
 
 5. Quantities of wool and wooUen yarn, forming the raw 
 materials of manufactures, exported from the United Kingdom. 
 
 WOOL. 
 
 Annual average of 1825, 1826, 1827— 178,0351b. 
 Annual average of 1835, 1836, 1887— 3,744,2951b. 
 
 WOOLLEN YABN. 
 
 Annual average of 1825, 1826, 1827— 154,5671b. 
 Annual average of 1885, 1836, 1837— 2,472,4101b. 
 
 VOL. I. F 
 
Q6 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 And it not only proves an increase in the manufacture abroad, 
 but the competition for the article raises the price to the home 
 manufacturer. 
 
 6. The dechne of the British woollen manufacture is proved 
 by the exports of last year compared with the average of the 
 four preceding years. 
 
 EXPOBT OP BEITISH WOOLLENS. 
 
 In 1838 6,157,000 
 
 Average of Four Years, 1834 to 1837 inclusive 6,543,000 
 Decrease 386,000 
 
 Ten or twelve years since, Belgium and Switzerland were 
 excellent customers for manufactured goods ; and, although the 
 French had prohibited English manufactures, vast quantities 
 ultimately found their way into the French market, being 
 smuggled in both from Switzerland and Belgium. Now 
 France supplies these goods to Belgium, Switzerland, and 
 various other parts of the Continent, as well as to the United 
 States and South America. This applied to the finer kind of 
 goods, on which most labour has been bestowed, and which 
 yielded the highest profit both to the manufacturer and the work- 
 man. We were every day doing less in fine goods ; the inferior 
 and less profitable goods were almost the only kind for which 
 there was any demand. 
 
 To this I may add the exports to Germany of 
 Woollen Groods before and after the tariff. 
 
 Exports of woollen cloths from the United Kmgdom to 
 Germany : — 
 
 Years. Pieces. 
 
 1832 17,855] 
 
 1833 17,790 [ Average— 15,942 pieces before the tariff. 
 
 1834 12,182] 
 
 1835 12,948] 
 
 1836 9,942 1- Average — 9,654 pieces since the tariff. 
 
 1837 6,073J 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 67 
 
 Exports of Woollen Goods used foe Weaeimg Appaebl (bx- 
 
 CLCSIVE OF WOESTED StUFFS), FEOM THE UeITED KlHGDOM TO 
 
 Geemany. 
 
 Tears 
 
 Cloths of 
 all Sorts 
 
 Napped Coat- 
 ings, Duffels, &c. 
 
 Kerseymeres 
 
 Total of these 
 three Articles 
 
 Three Tears' Aver- 
 ages, before a]id 
 since the Tariff 
 
 1832 
 1833 
 1834 
 1835 
 1836 
 1837 
 
 Pieces 
 17,856 
 17,790 
 12,182 
 12,948 
 9,942 
 6,073 
 
 Pieces 
 13,030 
 5,530 
 5,511 
 6,362 
 7,147 
 11,909 
 
 Pieces 
 21,101 
 13,562 
 8,709 
 7,993 
 6,984 
 3,824 
 
 Pieces 
 51,986^ 
 36,882 
 26,402 
 27,3031 
 24,073 
 21,806 
 
 
 Pieces 
 38,423 
 
 24,394 
 
 Total ■woollen exports (including worsted stuffs) to Germany. 
 Declared value : — 
 
 Years. 
 
 £ 
 
 Three Years' Averages 
 
 1882 
 
 816,718) 
 
 
 1883 
 
 684,916 [ 
 
 672,628Z. 
 
 1834 
 
 565,950j 
 
 
 1835 
 
 681,177) 
 
 
 1886 
 
 581,837 [ 
 
 646,207Z, 
 
 1887 
 
 725,607J 
 
 
 I will now read a letter from a person connected 
 with, the Woollen Trade at Stroud, which tends to 
 show the effects of losing any brancli of trade that 
 affords employment to labour : — 
 
 It is an alarming fact, that in the last twelve months we 
 have sent many hundreds of our best workmen to foreign coun- 
 tries, thus having our hands and mills burdened with the aged 
 and disabled. In April, about 400 are expected to leave for 
 Austraha, in consequence of being unable to maintain their 
 families at home. At present we have hundreds, and many 
 hundreds too, of good cottages vacant in this immediate neigh- 
 bourhood, and I am persuaded this state of desolation will continue 
 to increase if the laws, as they are, remain in operation. My 
 opinion is, that if the Corn Laws are entirely removed, we shall, 
 in a few short years, require at our manufactories the surplus 
 population who are now starving for want of bread. But apart 
 from the interested view we take of the subject as men, is it not 
 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 FEEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 a most wicked law to tax the staff of life which God promised to 
 man, and to every man, if he would labour for it ; and has not 
 Solomon said, ' He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse 
 him ' ?— Stroud, Feb. 12, 1839. 
 
 The Linen Trade also affords an example of the 
 fact that the material for manufacture has been 
 exported in greater proportion than manufactured 
 goods : — 
 
 Linen 
 
 Years 
 
 Goods 
 
 Tarn 
 
 Total 
 
 1834 
 1835 
 1836 
 1837 
 1838 
 
 & 
 2,443,346 
 2,992,143 
 3,326,325 
 2,127,445 
 2,919,719 
 
 £ 
 136,312 
 216,635 
 818,772 
 479,307 
 655,699 
 
 i, 
 2,579,658 
 3,208,778 
 3,645,097 
 2,606,752 
 8,575,418 
 
 ExpoBTS OF Wool and Woollen (Wobsted) Yarn eeom the 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 
 British Wool exported 
 
 Woollen Tain exported 
 
 Years 
 
 
 
 
 Quantity- 
 
 Declared Value 
 
 Quantity 
 
 Declared Value 
 
 
 lbs. 
 
 £ 
 
 lbs. 
 
 £ 
 
 1820 
 
 85,242 
 
 
 3,924 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 34,226 
 
 
 9,121 
 
 
 
 1822 
 
 33,208 
 
 ... 
 
 12,515 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 28,563 
 
 
 6,423 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 53,743 
 
 
 12,640 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 112,424 
 
 
 76,961 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 148,180 
 
 
 131,032 
 
 
 
 1827 
 
 278,552 
 
 
 255,708 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 1,669,887 
 
 
 426,722 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 1,332,097 
 
 
 589,558 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 2,951,100 
 
 
 1,108,023 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 3,494,275 
 
 
 1,692,455 
 
 158,111 
 
 1832 
 
 4,199,825 
 
 
 2,204,464 
 
 235,307 
 
 1833 
 
 4,992,110 
 
 
 2,107,478 
 
 246,204 
 
 1834 
 
 2,278,721 
 
 «>g 
 
 
 1,861,814 
 
 238,544 
 
 1835 
 
 4,642,604 
 
 So 
 ■1% 
 
 
 2,367,336 
 
 309,091 
 
 1836 
 
 3,942,407 
 
 
 2,646,177 
 
 358,690 
 
 1837 
 
 2,647,874J 
 
 <jS 
 
 
 2,513,718 
 
 338,097 
 
 1838 
 
 
 432,000 
 
 
 865,657 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 69 
 
 But if we have reason to apprehend that we 
 shall no longer have the advantage of clothing the 
 rest of the world cheaper and better than any other 
 country, have we any reason to expect that we shall 
 retain the valuable branch of manufacture in Hard- 
 ware and Cutlery ? I believe that nothing in any 
 other branch of the question now occupying our atten- 
 tion would startle the House more than what an in- 
 quuy into this one would elicit. For though men are 
 reluctant to speak out so fully as they would wish 
 as regards the fearful competition to which they are 
 subjected in being undersold in the other countries, 
 for fear of advertising their misfortune, yet, as the 
 facts are sufficiently notorious in the Trade, they 
 could not withhold them upon inquiry. I will here 
 read an extract from the letter of a factor who has 
 extensive dealings with different parts of the world, 
 and who is ready to verify at the Bar of the House 
 any statement in the letter : — 
 
 Grainsley, Feb. 15, 1839. 
 My dear Sir, — With respect to our hardware articles of this 
 neighbourhood, many are making less quantities than they were 
 used to do, in consequence of some of the foreign markets bemg 
 closed to us by manufacturing their own goods, or by prohibi- 
 tory duties, such as the Prussian League affords. A great many 
 articles manufactured in this town, and the adjacent ones, were 
 annually exported to the emancipated States of South America ; 
 but this market is fast closing upon us, in consequence of the rival 
 and fast-spreading manufactures of Westphalia, Saxony, &c. 
 Some eighteen months ago, I saw a considerable quantity of 
 samples of locks, bolts, screws, knives, coffee and pepper mills, 
 hatchets, cutlasses, &c., with manuscript drawings of other 
 wrought-iron goods. These were offered for sale at a merchant's 
 house in London, and delivered free at Hamburg. Many, indeed 
 
70 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 most, of tiie prices were under ours. They are much improved 
 in finish and quality since I inspected them, and as they have 
 increased in these qualities they have declined in prices — so 
 much so, that they have siipplanted the British artist in not only 
 the South American market, but in North America and Western 
 Europe. I have received a letter from the principal clerk of an 
 establishment, informing me that the Dutch East India Company 
 were now buying many of the articles (our hardware) from the 
 Germans to our exclusion. The fact is, we used to supply this 
 estabhshment with locks and brass foundry for the Dutch settle- 
 ments, which we have now ceased to do, in consequence of our 
 being undersold by the German makers. There are now orders 
 in this town from Mexico, and other parts of South America, 
 which cannot be executed, because our present prices exceed 
 those of foreign manufactures. This is the consequence of our 
 artisans being compelled to live on food more than 50 per cent. 
 dearer than the foreign workman. Within these ten days I 
 accompanied a factor to Willenhall, who had an order for sixty 
 dozen gridirons for a foreign country ; he was limited in price by 
 an offer from a new manufacturer in Belgium to his customer, 
 who had had this article from him before. On presenting this 
 order to his usual workman, the man said, ' Sir, I cannot make 
 them at the price you offer me ; iron is dearer than when I made 
 you the last lot, and I and my workpeople are worse off, having 
 more to give for our bread and bacon. How can you expect me 
 to make them at the same price ? ' ' What you say is too true ; 
 but if I camiot buy them rather lower than before, I must not 
 send them.' After a pause, the poor fellow deplored his inability, 
 but he agreed to ' try his hands ' (his workmen), ' for,' says 
 he, ' they must either do this order at the price offered, or they 
 must have nothing to do for two or three days in the week. I 
 must get the difference out of our blood and bones (harder 
 labour) by working fifteen or sixteen hours, instead of twelve or 
 thirteen, as we used to do when I first began to work for myself.' 
 Now, this is literally a fact. Our poor fellows are compelled to 
 labour more hours for the same wages, and fare worse, as the 
 produce of their own labour will not purchase as much food as 
 their regular labour used to do. What, if the staff of life were 
 equalized here and abroad (or as near as the charge of convey- 
 ance, risk, &c., would allow), would be the comparative condition 
 of the home and foreign workman ? Why, the very article 
 here in question was made at the same price thirty years ago. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 71 
 
 and then subject to a discount of 20 per cent., whereas now it 
 is subject to 60 per cent, off the same rate of prices. Wheat 
 was then about 60s., and iron rather dearer than at present. 
 Observe, gridirons are not made by machinery ; therefore 
 labour, and labour only, pays the difference. The article of 
 matchets, a tool shaped hke a sword, for working in sugar plan- 
 tations, and so of hoes, for the same purpose, are at this time 
 manufactured in Westphalia, at fcom 30 to 40 per cent, under 
 our prices, and quite as good an article. I am in possession 
 of a foreign (Berlin) printed book of articles (hardware) manu- 
 factured in Germany, [for the supply of the North and South 
 American market, as well as the European, delivered free of car- 
 riage at Hamburg, at prices, in many instances, under ours, in 
 close imitation of British, and on some of the articles our crack 
 makers' names are stamped. These very, things are sold by 
 samples in London, Liverpool, Bristol, &c., for exportation, and 
 are shipped at Hamburg direct for their foreign destination, to 
 markets where our home-made goods — bearing the same makers' 
 names, observe — are by such means excluded. The hardware 
 manufactures are principally carried on at Solingen, Eemscheid, 
 and Hagen, in Westphalia, and the nearest point of access to 
 them for England is through Dusseldorff on the Ehine. A 
 Sheffield gentleman was with me a short time since, who had 
 visited the manufactories of Prussia, Saxony, Westphalia, and 
 Belgium ; he assured me they were extending their workshops 
 very fast, and improving vastly m every article they undertook. 
 A large manufacturer in Germany, and president of their Board 
 of Trade, assured my friend they were determined to become 
 manufacturers on a large scale, and that they took their rise 
 from about the time our Corn Laws began. They were smuggling 
 goods into Eussia, the Slito (I think he called the name of the 
 town), in the Isle of Gotland in the Baltic, and the Eussian 
 authorities winked at it. There is a manufacturer of locks, &c., 
 in Walsall, who has for some years confined himself and a large 
 shop of workpeople to make for the South American market 
 only. He has now very little to do, and his trade has been gra- 
 dually falling away in consequence of the opposition the ex- 
 porters of his articles meet with from foreign makers. Had the 
 South American markets not been opened to our enterprise, I am 
 persuaded this Corn Law question would have come on much 
 sooner than it has ; and, now that market is diminishing in its 
 demand from us, we shall feel the effects sensibly every year. 
 
72 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Are you aware the German manufacturers have established 
 depots at New York, Philadelphia, Boston, &c., for the wholesale 
 sale of ' their home-made hardware goods,' and that they are 
 supplying cutlery at prices under the Sheffield makers, as well as 
 many kinds of our goods ? In short, foreign manufactures are 
 increasing, and will increase, so long as our land-owners prevail 
 and persevere in their selfish policy. 
 
 I will also read you a letter from a merchant 
 engaged in the general trade at BirmiBgham : — 
 
 Birmingham, Feb. 17, 1839. 
 
 The United States now import from the continent of Europe 
 large quantities of the following articles, which they formerly 
 procured solely from Birmingham : — 
 
 Metal buttons, of all descriptions, gilt, plated, &c., formerly 
 a staple article in the Birmingham trade ; now obtained almost 
 entirely from the Continent, at a lower price. 
 
 Spectacles, of all kinds ; formerly in very extensive demand, 
 now superseded by the cheaper German article. 
 
 Needles and fish-hooks, marked with the names of the most 
 celebrated English makers, are now imported extensively from 
 Germany. 
 
 Locks of all descriptions, but especially the finer qualities, 
 are imported from St. Etienne, near Lyons. There is much 
 more finish bestowed upon the locks and keys than the English 
 manufacturer can afford at the same price. The present demand 
 from this country is chiefly for the common qualities. 
 
 Fowling-pieces and pistols, of high finish, are now princi- 
 pally imported from Prance and Belgium. The manufacturers 
 of the Continent undoubtedly excel us in those guns whose chief 
 value consists in the workmanship. 
 
 Pins are imported from Germany m much larger quantities 
 than formerly. 
 
 Brass battery kettles are made much cheaper on the Conti- 
 nent than in England, and the imports are chiefly from the 
 former country. 
 
 Scythes, straw-knives, sickles, formerly imported only from 
 England, are now made cheaper, and as good, in Germany ; and 
 our sales of these articles are much diminished. 
 
 When I first visited New York, in 1826, there were, in that 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 73 
 
 city, two or three German houses, who (amongst other articles 
 which they imported from their native country) received, every 
 season, a few packages of assorted German hardware. The 
 articles, however, were so inferior in finish, and so different in 
 style and shape, from those which the Americans had been 
 accustomed to receive from Birmingham, that, in spite of the 
 greater cheapness of the former, the English article was still 
 preferred. 
 
 In 1837 and 1838 I was again in New York, and discovered, 
 to my surprise and mortification, that there were many extensive 
 estabhshments for the exclusive sale of German and French 
 hardware goods, resembling in pattern, equalling in quality, and 
 surpassing in cheapness, similar English articles of Birmingham, 
 Sheffield, and Wolverhampton manufacture. 
 
 The quantity and variety of continental articles now substi- 
 tuted for English ones are rapidly increasing. 
 
 The principal articles whose sale we have lost by the com- 
 petition of American manufacturers are axes, hatchets, and many 
 kinds of edge-tools ; carpenters' hammers, gimlets, augurs, &c. ; 
 brushes of aU descriptions. 
 
 I fear that the poor mechanic referred to in the 
 former letter I read, stated what we must expect to 
 occur if we are to experience this competition : wages 
 will be reduced and ' the effects wiU be felt in the 
 blood and sinews of the working classes.' This is 
 the natural operation of a losing trade ; and I know 
 nothing more shocking to contemplate than the 
 struggle that will be made at the expense of that 
 class. How much more might I have detailed to 
 the same effect showing that these results from com- 
 petition have already commenced ! But I feel that 
 I ought not now to weary the House with further 
 details. It is impossible to do more within the limits 
 of a speech than to give an outline of the evidence 
 that is ready to be submitted in support of the case ; 
 
74 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 but be assured that there are details in abundance of 
 tliis kind which would both shock and startle those 
 who would be willing to listen and who are yet 
 uninjured. It has been my sole purpose this evening 
 to satisfy the House that the petitioners have good 
 ground for their application to be allowed to inform 
 it of the operation of the Corn" Laws on the manufac- 
 turing interest. I think that I have stated enough 
 to prove that there is a case most deserving at least 
 of inquiry. 
 
 And now I shall proceed to the last subject of 
 my address : the ground on which the petitioners 
 have asked you to institute an inquiry, ' not ' — to use 
 the emphatic language of the Nottingham petition — 
 ' in the seclusion of a Committee Room, but in the 
 face of the whole representation of the United King- 
 dom ; ' and the grounds on which I wish to show that 
 there is at least a strong presumption in favour of 
 the assertion that we are compelled by the operation of 
 the Corn Laws to engage in competition with our 
 neighbours, fettered and on unequal terms. The 
 request of the petitioners is in my opmion a just one ; 
 I trust to show you that it is a reasonable one ; and 
 I hope that you will deem it advisable to accede to it. 
 The reason why so many are anxious for this mode 
 of inquiry is that they believe the subject to be 
 most important to every class of the community, 
 and that the petitioners would be fully able to 
 establish their case. It cannot, I think, be denied 
 of the two modes of inquiry that this House can 
 institute — namely, a Select Committee and a Com- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 75 
 
 mittee of the whole House — that while the latter is 
 calculated to attract and excite public attention, the 
 other is only fitted to allay or divert it ; that while 
 the one is bound to satisfy those who have sought 
 its judgment, the other is sure, from the nature of its 
 composition, not to satisfy anybody. In short, while 
 one is the fullest and fairest that the Constitution 
 admits of, the other is open to suspicion ; and I do 
 think that the people can come here with a good grace 
 to ask of the grand inquest of the country a full and 
 fair investigation of their grievances. 
 
 Considering the interest the Corn Laws involve, 
 and the time they have endured, they cannot be said 
 to be asking a dangerous or inconvenient precedent — 
 for where is the case like it ? The petitioners cannot 
 be told that they are desirous of changing Laws of 
 which there has not been sufficient experience, or 
 Laws that they ever approved of They come here to 
 prove that all they predicted of their consequences 
 nearly a quarter of a century since has been verified, 
 and they have suifered aU they expected from them. 
 And now, when they are hourly feeling their eff'ects 
 in a stronger degree, they ask you only to hear the 
 evidence of the facts that would prove them. 
 
 Upon what possible ground can you refuse the 
 request ? This reaUy is no trifling matter, and I 
 trust that it will not be lightly dismissed. It is 
 the great body of the middle classes — the most re- 
 flecting portion of the working class, who appeal to 
 this House. They approach you in a manner the 
 least objectionable that is possible. They offer you 
 
76 FREE TBADE SPEECHES. 
 
 no intimidation ; ttey come here with no menace, 
 with no violence ; but with consideration for your 
 supposed opinions, and even with deference to them. 
 It is the same Parliament that refused to alter the 
 Corn Laws last year ; and they do not come now to 
 you to ask you at once and hastily to repeal the 
 Laws, but they request you to hear the grounds on 
 which they demand Repeal, and on which they think 
 you ought to reconsider your decision. 
 
 What does any reflecting man imagine will be 
 the advantage of refusing the inquiry ? Do you 
 tlaink that the numbers of men who have stepped 
 out of their usual walks and left their business 
 — can it be supposed that those who for now three 
 months have been up here in the metropolis actively 
 devoting their attention to this subject, will at once 
 abandon their opinions because you reject their 
 petition for inquiry and refuse to alter the law ? 
 Does anybody believe that those who have not the 
 patience of the persons who seek only the repeal 
 of the Corn Laws, but who, despairing of justice, 
 say that there is no hope of redress from this House 
 as it is constituted at present, will at once abandon 
 that opinion because you refuse to hear evidence 
 while you dispute the facts ? What is the eifect 
 of this course but to teach those who yet have 
 confidence in the House to believe that they have 
 been wrong, and to make them heartily unite with 
 others for its reform ? They do not apply to you 
 to do anything contrary to your forms and prece- 
 dents : precedents — and there is no lack of prece- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 77 
 
 dents — justify the application of the petitioners. It 
 did not require the zeal of my honourable friend 
 the Member for Ashton to disclose the precedents 
 recorded on the Journals. Former Parliaments 
 have always deemed it a sufficient reason to in- 
 stitute a full and open inquiry when those who 
 have represented the manufacturing and commercial 
 interests have alleged that particular laws have been 
 injurious to them, and have sought to prove their 
 grievances before this House. In such cases the 
 House has always granted the specific inquiry. 
 
 I need only refer to the Orders in Council of 
 1812 to find a case analogous to this. In 1812 there 
 was a preponderating party in the House who, before 
 the inquiry, refused to attend to the statements of 
 the merchants and manufacturers ; who alleged the 
 inconvenience of the mode of inquiry ; and who by 
 every pretext sought to avoid the investigation. 
 Every objection was urged against the proposal ; it 
 was specifically asserted that no result would follow ; 
 and yet I have heard fi:om those who took part in 
 that inquiry that numbers prejudiced against an 
 alteration acknowledged, after the evidence had been 
 heard, that such was the efifect of the statements of 
 the witnesses that their previous opinions had been 
 altered by the evidence : they fully admitted the 
 grievance and urged upon Ministers the propriety 
 of rescinding those Orders. 
 
 And having in that case granted an inquiry, on 
 the allegations of the mercantile, the commercial, and 
 the manufacturing interests, will you now refuse all 
 
78 TEEE TRADE SPEECHES, 
 
 tender of evidence on tte present petition ? If you 
 do not deny the facts, but admit them to be true, 
 how can you refuse the consideration of the question ? 
 If you deny the facts, how can you refuse the offer 
 of proof ? The petitioners in this case, moreover, 
 do not observe that inquiries have always been re- 
 sisted from a careful economy of the public time ; 
 for they find that within the memory of many pre- 
 sent you were engaged for thirteen days in examining 
 into the malpractices of a royal personage, and that 
 not sickened with the profligate details of the inquiry 
 you were occupied for ten days more in the discus- 
 sion of the evidence and the charges. 
 
 Grant, then, but twenty-three days to the per- 
 sons who in the interest of the manufactures and 
 commerce of the country now approach you, and I 
 am satisfied that before you have completed the 
 inquiry you wUl regret that it was not instituted 
 before : you will not repent having granted it, and 
 you will not rest satisfied till you have learnt the 
 whole truth. 
 
 I will not, however, believe that this question will 
 be decided upon a matter of form ; or that the House, 
 with full powers to determme whether it will hear 
 what is offered to it or not, will reject the present appli- 
 cation upon the mere question of precedent. Never- 
 theless, should the question of precedent be raised, I 
 have ample authority for the peculiar application that 
 I make. I have here a precedent that in matter and 
 form difi'ers in no respect from the present case. It 
 is a petition that was presented on the 16th of March, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 79 
 
 1785, to the House of Commons, from ' the gentle- 
 men, clergy, land-owners, merchants, manufacturers, 
 dyers, bleachers, and others interested in the fustian 
 trade in the towns of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, 
 &c.,' against an Act imposing duties ' on cotton 
 stuffs, bleached or dyed, and licences for bleaching 
 and dyeing the same,' stating that the Act had 
 ' involved the petitioners in the greatest distress, 
 and absolutely threatened that branch of commerce 
 with inevitable ruin, &c.' ; ' that the said duty will 
 essentially aiFect labour, and will operate as a tax 
 upon it ; at the same time that it cannot, by its 
 nature, be productive, it will ultimately destroy the 
 petitioners' trade, and diminish the public Revenue 
 in the same proportion as it diminishes commerce 
 and those various exeiseable articles and duties which 
 spring from that source, &c.' It ends by praying 
 ' that the petitioners may be heard at the Bar of the 
 House against the said Act, &c.' The complaints of 
 the commercial and the manufacturing interests were 
 not imavailing in that case, for the House at once 
 granted the prayer ; there was no debate ; and the 
 House ordered ' That the said petition be referred to 
 the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, 
 and that the petitioners be heard by themselves be- 
 fore the said Committee, upon their petition, if they 
 think fit.' 
 
 How any one can say that the interests now 
 seeking to be heard are of less importance or that 
 their grievances are less serious than were those of 
 the persons interested in the fustian trade forty years 
 
80 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ago, I am at a loss to conceive. Unless you admit 
 the facts stated by tlie petitioners, and do not deny 
 that they have already lost some trade and that they 
 will soon lose more, I cannot tell how you can refuse 
 an inquiry. 
 
 Fortified then by precedent, by justice, and by 
 all that is wise and reasonable in the course they are 
 pursuing, I trust that you will not reject their prayer; 
 for I cannot doubt that the impression produced 
 upon the petitioners and the public — thousands of 
 whom are paying the utmost attention to the matter 
 — if this application be refused, will be that there 
 is a fear or a reluctance in this House for the truth 
 to be made known and the facts to be published 
 to the country. No other inference is to be drawn, 
 or will be drawn, from your refusal except that a 
 majority of this House is loath to change the Corn 
 Laws, and that they will not receive evidence be- 
 cause such evidence must inevitably lead to an 
 alteration in them. 
 
 But not being disposed to anticipate the com- 
 mission of so grave an error and injustice, I wiU 
 now submit my proposition, trusting fully that you 
 wUl concede the inquiry. 
 
 I have carefully abstained from entering into 
 any consideration as to the general effect of the 
 Corn Laws. I have confined myself strictly to the 
 particular effects pointed out by the petitioners 
 because I wished to satisfy your minds of the serious 
 injury inflicted on them. I now move : That 
 J, B. Smith, Robert Hyde Greg, and others, be 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 81 
 
 heard at the Bar of this House, by their witnesses, 
 agents, or counsel, in support of the allegations 
 of their petition, presented to the House on the 15th 
 instant, complaining of the operation of the Corn 
 Laws. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
82 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 III. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 12, 1839. 
 
 On March 12, 1839, Mr. Villiers moved in the House of Commons ' That 
 the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to 
 take into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, regulating the importation 
 of foreign corn.' After a debate of five nights the Motion was rejected by 
 342 to 195. In the debate in the Lords, March 14, on Lord Fitzwilliam's 
 Eesolutions condemning the Corn Laws, which were rejected by 224 to 24, 
 Lord Melbourne said : ' To leave the whole agricultural interest without 
 protection, I declare before God that I think it the wildest and maddest 
 scheme that has ever entered into the imagination of man to conceive.' 
 The result of the defeat was the organization of the Anti-Corn- Law League. 
 The central offices of the League were established at Manchester, and its 
 council was formed of the executive committee of the Manchester Anti- 
 Corn-Law Association, which it absorbed. 
 
 In pursuance of the suggestion that it would be con- 
 venient to discuss the subject of the Corn Laws, which 
 I ventured to make in the early part of the Session, 
 I now rise to bring under the consideration of the 
 House those more general consequences of the Laws 
 that upon the last occasion of their discussion were 
 kept out of view. Indeed, I consider it far preferable 
 to judge of a measure by its general effects, than by 
 what may be deemed incidental or special effects only, 
 and more particularly is it necessary in this case, in 
 which it is difficult to do justice without taking the 
 most comprehensive view of the subject. StUl I am 
 decidedly of opinion that any law that is alleged to 
 be prejudicial to the manufacturing or the commercial 
 interests of this country is well worthy of deliberation 
 from those special pomts of view ; and notwithstand- 
 
HOUSE OP COMMONS. 83 
 
 ing the censures cast upon the course that has been 
 pursued by the manufacturers of this country, and 
 the reproofs that have been offered to them for their 
 impatience on a subject on which they have hitherto 
 been represented as wanting in feeling, I cannot but 
 think that in their respectful request to the House to 
 take into consideration a subject that is a grievance to 
 them, they have not only pursued a reasonable and 
 becoming course, but also (regarding both the present 
 and the future prospects of the question) the most 
 judicious one that they could have adojJted ; and my 
 sole regret is that those who have openly opposed 
 the question should have so far forgotten what is 
 generally expected from this House by the country : 
 to hear before deciding. But the manner in which 
 this question is proposed for discussion to-night will 
 eHcit what the grounds are on which the House deems 
 it expedient to refuse to hear the information that is 
 tendered ; and whether it is that the information is 
 already possessed and need not be sought, or whether 
 it is that the information is still in dispute and that it 
 is thought wise so to leave it. 
 
 The manner in which the question now comes 
 before the House will open the widest field for the 
 display of all the information that can be brought to 
 its discussion ; and there "nill be at least this advant- 
 age (I fear that it may be the only one), it will allow 
 the country to know upon what ground the majority 
 of the House intend to maintain the existing Corn 
 Laws, against the feelings and wishes of the com- 
 munity. 
 
 e 2 
 
84 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 I am glad to observe, moreover, the eagerness that 
 my opponents manifest to enter into the discussion. 
 There is one so anxious to be heard that he has not 
 only proposed to reject my Motion, but he has also 
 recorded his argument along with his Notice ; an 
 argument, too, of so bold a character that I own I 
 am curious to hear its explanation. 
 
 I hope that upon this occasion we shaU also hear 
 explained those more general views of the subject that 
 we on this side of the House were recently reproved 
 for not having taken ; and that when we are told 
 that this is not merely an economical question, but one 
 of far wider extent, we shall hear what the political, 
 social, and moral considerations are that can justify 
 the support of such laws. Most certainly I shall not 
 shrink from regarding them from every point of view 
 because, as I have already said, I beheve that the 
 more extensively they are studied, the more minutely 
 their consequences are examined, the less will persons 
 be left in doubt as to their pohcy or effect. 
 
 But stUl I am of opinion that the question is a 
 very simple one ; as simple as many of the questions 
 that have already been decided in this country. It 
 appears to me to resemble such a question as that of 
 personal liberty or freedom of opinion ; and I cannot 
 but feel surprised that it should be left to this day to 
 raise a discussion on a point so easy to solve. It is 
 really astonishing that at this period of our history 
 we should be gravely discussing whether a free, an 
 industrious, and a commercial people shall have a 
 right to exercise their honest industry in any manner 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 85 
 
 they please ; whether they shall be allowed to carry on 
 their trade in any manner that may be most advanta- 
 geous to themselves and most beneficial to the State ; 
 and whether they shall be allowed to obtain their sub- 
 sistence in any market at the least cost to themselves 
 and at the best advantage to the country. It is diffi- 
 cult to conceive that we are debating a matter of this 
 kind ; and it will be hereafter a curious sign of the 
 integrity and the intelligence of this House, that one 
 Member of it should have found it important to move, 
 ' That it is the privilege of the people to exercise 
 their industry with perfect liberty ; ' and that another 
 Member — perhaps the more successful one — should 
 have moved, ' That it is important that the people shall 
 be restricted in the exercise of that liberty ' and that 
 ' the Law which has limited the amount and raised the 
 price of human subsistence, has worked well for the 
 interests of the country.' If the Noble Lord thinks 
 that the House must slumber pending an inquiry into 
 the consequences of such a law, it seems to me to be 
 no stretch of the imagination to suppose that those 
 who resist the Motion that I am about to make, will 
 laugh heartily, when they go forth to a division, at 
 the imbecility and ignorance of the people who sub- 
 mit to such treatment. 
 
 As I do not wish to expose myself to the accusa- 
 tion that was made before, of arguing this question, 
 upon too narrow a ground, and as it is proposed by 
 the Hon. Gentleman who is to move the Amend- 
 ment, to show that the Com Laws have given pro- 
 tection to the productive industry of the country, it 
 
86 EEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 may not perhaps seem inappropriate that I should 
 proceed to consider the effects of these Laws upon 
 the most numerous and the most important class of 
 the community — which I consider to be the workiag 
 class, since upon their condition, and upon their con- 
 tentment, the stability of the whole social fabric must 
 depend. 
 
 And here I conceive that I and the author of the 
 Amendment are directly at issue ; for although his 
 language is not so plain as that which I should 
 be disposed to use, yet I conclude that when the 
 Hon. Gentleman uses the term ' productive in- 
 dustry,' he means only what I myself mean : those 
 persons whose labour is employed in the business 
 of production. I would, however, suggest to the 
 Hon. Member to be as clear and as exphcit in the 
 language he may use as he possibly can; because 
 although nothing new can be alleged on this subject, 
 either in point of fact or argument, yet there is one 
 circumstance connected with it that is new : namely, 
 that the attention of the public is directed to it. I 
 therefore expect that every fact, argument, and 
 opinion that may be stated in the discussion will be 
 closely and severely examined by those who are now 
 interesting themselves in this question. 
 
 If I understand the Amendment that it is the 
 intention of the Hon. Member to move, it de- 
 clares that what tends to raise the price of provi- 
 sions has been of benefit to the working classes of 
 this country. A proposition more contradictory to 
 what might have been expected or to what has been 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 87 
 
 actually experienced has never been propounded. I 
 venture to tell the Hon. Member and those with 
 whom he acts upon this question that it may be laid 
 down as a principle that whatever tends to facili- 
 tate production or to increase the amount of objects 
 of necessary consumption confers a blessing on the 
 community, increases the wealth of the country, 
 increases the means of consumption, increases the 
 demand for labour, and improves the condition of 
 every member of the commtmity. There is nothing 
 in the article of food that can possibly distinguish 
 it from other articles of general consumption ; and 
 notwithstanding the arguments that have been gener- 
 ally employed by the supporters of the present sys- 
 tem, I venture to say that if any means could be dis- 
 covered for increasing the produce of the land and 
 for economizing production where cultivation admits 
 of improvement, if any method could be introduced 
 to increase the produce of the land and to dispense 
 with the service of cultivators or of labourers, the 
 Hon. Member and his party would instantly resort 
 to such means, and laugh to scorn any person who 
 should venture to tell them that for the purpose of 
 protecting the cultivators or labourers they ought to 
 forego all these advantages. The Hon. Member, if 
 I interpret his proposal rightly, contends that the 
 Laws that have had the effect I have stated are of 
 advantage to the productive classes in this co'untry. 
 
 Now I will divide the productive classes into two 
 portions, one comprising those persons who are em- 
 ployed in the production of food, and the other com- 
 
88 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 prising all those who are employed in the production 
 of other things ; and I tell the Hon. Member that 
 it is utterly impossible for him to prove that the 
 high price of food ever has been or ever can be of 
 benefit to the agricultural labourer. 
 
 What has been the result of the inquiry into the 
 operation of the old Poor Law? Why, that the 
 Commissioners were able to trace all the pauperism 
 under which the country then suffered to the high 
 price of provisions and the low price of labour, 
 which in 1830 had reduced the labourer to a state 
 as degraded as that of the slave, and one in which, 
 perhaps, he was even less regarded than the slave. 
 It was the concurrent testimony of every person 
 employed in the inquiry that in 1795 or 1797, 
 when the price of provisions rose to a great height, 
 the farmers first resorted to the plan of paying 
 the labourers out of the Rates, for the purpose of 
 escaping the increase of wages that would otherwise 
 have been rendered necessary on account of the in- 
 creased prices of food. From that time to the Peace 
 the price of provisions was unusually high, and the 
 condition of the agricultural labourer became far 
 worse — much worse than it was after prices had 
 fallen : showing that when the price of provisions is 
 high the condition of the agricultural labourer is bad. 
 The result of the high price of provisions is to lower 
 the price of labour by throwing a larger number of 
 labourers into the market, while at the same time it 
 increases the cost of their support. 
 
 Another proof that the agricultural labourers are 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 89 
 
 badly off when the price of provisions is high, may be 
 found in the fact that it is at that moment that the 
 employer seeks to extract from them the greatest 
 amount of labour. It is known to every one who 
 resides in the country that whenever the price of 
 provisions is high, a greater number of labourers are 
 unemployed and may be obtained on better terms 
 than at any other time. I do not state this entirely 
 on my own authority ; for I shall quote in support 
 of it the evidence given before a Committee of this 
 House on the Corn Bill, by a land agent and occupier 
 of land named Mibie : — 
 
 I wished to inclose a farm at the latter end of the year 1812 
 or at the beginning of 1813. I sent for my bailiff, and told him 
 that I had inclosed, about twenty-five years ago, a good deal of 
 land ; that the inclosure at that time cost me 3s. per ell of 37 
 inches ; that a neighbour of mine, two or three years ago, had 
 made similar inclosures, which cost him 5s. per ell ; that I 
 thought he had paid too much, and that I ought to do it cheaper. 
 The answer I got from my baUiff was, — that provisions were very 
 high — that the labourers were doing double work — and that, of 
 course, there was less demand for labour ; and that he could do 
 these inclosures last year at a cheaper rate than I had ever done 
 them ; and he actually executed this inclosure at about 2s. 6d. 
 per ell. He again came to me, and told me that I had proposed 
 to him to do some ditching and drainmg upon another farm, 
 which I did not intend to do till about a twelvemonth after, from 
 the circumstance of not being in full possession of the whole 
 farm. He requested that I would allow him to do it that 
 season, as he could do it so much cheaper, and that a great many 
 labourers were idle from having little work, in consequence of 
 those employed doing double work. I desired him to go on with 
 that labour likewise, and he actually contracted for very large 
 ditches, at 6d. an ell, — which I do not think I could do now 
 under from Is. to Is. 6d., in consequence of the fall in pro- 
 visions. 
 
90 TBEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 From inquiries tliat I have made in different places I 
 can assert that this evidence corresponds with the fact. 
 It is said that this is a labourer's question, and 
 that if the Corn Laws are repealed a great number 
 of labourers will be thrown out of employment : 
 the assertion seems to imply that the Corn Laws 
 are necessary for retaining agricultural labourers 
 in constant employment. I venture to say that the 
 Corn Laws have not that effect ; they do not secure 
 the employment of agricultural labourers ; and 
 it is quite accidental, as experience proves, what 
 number of labourers is employed under the present 
 system. It has been a constant complaint ia various 
 parishes that there is a redundance of labourers. 
 Since the Unions have been formed 6,000 persons 
 have been assisted to go into the manufacturing dis- 
 tricts, and upwards of 6,000 have voluntarily gone 
 there, and have been doing weU. Besides this there 
 has been a constant emigration of labourers to the 
 North American colonies. 
 
 Neither have the Corn Laws rendered them 
 content ; so far from it that since the Corn Laws 
 have been m operation, agricultural labourers have 
 been more dissatisfied than before. In the year 
 1830, the Corn Laws had been fifteen years in opera- 
 tion, and at no period have the labourers of this 
 country been in a state of greater dissatisfaction 
 and wretchedness. If the principle that Corn Laws 
 ought to be maintained because they give occupation 
 to the labourers be good, why, let me ask, are not 
 the advantages of the threshing machine foregone to 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 91 
 
 produce the same effect? Where is there an instance 
 of the use of machinery having been given up on this 
 ground? And why should the land be cultivated 
 merely for the sake of giving employment to agricul- 
 tural labourers ? So much, then, for the Protection 
 afforded by these Laws to the agricultural labourer. 
 
 I have a statement to read to the House show- 
 ing what has been the value of the wages of all of 
 the other productive classes under different prices of 
 provisions. I have selected two years previous and 
 two years subsequent to the coming into operation of 
 the present Corn Laws. In 1822 the average price of 
 wheat was 43s., and a labourer receiving 31s. 6d. per 
 week was enabled to command 23 pecks of wheat. 
 In 1828, when wheat was at 60s., the wages amounted 
 to 34.5., and 18 pecks only could be procured. The 
 hand-loom weaver could command 6^ pecks when 
 wheat was at 43s.; when it was at 60s. he could com- 
 mand only 3^pecks. The cotton- spinner at Manchester 
 could command under the cheap price 16 and under 
 the dear price 14 pecks. The stocking-maker of 
 Leicester could command 8 pecks in the cheap year 
 but 4^ only in the dear year. The labourer could 
 procure 7-| pecks when the price was 43s. and only 
 4^ pecks when it was 60s. The wages of the printer, 
 compositor, and persons of that class, did not vary 
 much, and were at an average of 36s. per week ; 
 while wheat was at 43s. they could procure as much 
 as 27 pecks, but when it was 60s. they could not 
 procure more than 19 pecks. Since the present Corn 
 Laws were passed the average price of wheat was in 
 
92 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 1831,66s.;ml835 it was 39s. The cotton- spinners in 
 tlie dear year were enabled to command 15 pecks ; and 
 in the cheap year 23 pecks. When the price of wheat 
 was 66s. the poor hand-loom weaver was' able to com- 
 mand only 2 pecks of wheat ; while the price averaged 
 39s., he was enabled to command 4 pecks. The 
 cotton-spinners at Manchester received 30s. per week, 
 and could obtain 14^ pecks ; the stocking-makers at 
 Leicester when they had 7s. per week could obtain 
 3 pecks ; and when iu the dear season they received 
 8s. they could obtain 4^ pecks. The labourer obtaiaed 
 when wheat was 66s., 4 pecks ; and when 39s., 6 pecks. 
 The printer when it was 66s. obtained 17, and when 
 at 39s., he obtained 28. 
 
 And this is the practical result of the Laws that 
 give Protection to productive industry, and by main- 
 taining the high price of provisions place the working 
 classes in a better position ! 
 
 But what is to be said for such Laws when 
 their indirect effect on the manufacturing classes 
 is considered ? What is the ground on which 
 Protection is claimed under them according to the 
 author of the Amendment ? It is that the pro- 
 ductive classes are not able to compete with the 
 cheap and light-taxed living of other countries. 
 This is the very case of the artisans and the manu- 
 facturers : they say that they cannot compete with 
 the cheaper living and lighter taxed artisans of the 
 Continent ; and they ask for the Protection of cheap 
 living here in order that they may compete with their 
 foreign neighbours. They are employed by a foreign 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 93 
 
 employer who cares not by whom he gets his work 
 done — whether by English, Italians, Swiss, or Bel- 
 gians, provided he can procure it at the cheapest 
 rate ; and he finds that the artisans of Belgium and 
 Switzerland can produce their work cheaper than those 
 of England, because the cost of their living is less; 
 therefore he chooses to employ the inhabitants of 
 those countries ; and therefore it is that Englishmen 
 ask to be put upon as good a footing as the foreigner. 
 
 There is a difference, however, between the Pro- 
 tection claimed by our artisans and the Protection 
 that the supporters of the Corn Laws claim; the 
 artisans do not ask for a law to make food cheap, 
 but the repeal of the Laws that make food dear. 
 The manufacturer says that he cannot compete with 
 the foreign workman because his food is taxed. I 
 ask whether this is justice to the English manufac- 
 turer. The difference between his circumstances and 
 those of the foreigner is this: the Englishman is 
 obhged to pay dearly for his food while the foreigner 
 can get his cheap ; and his difficulty lies in com- 
 peting with the foreigner who can live cheaply. Now 
 you claim the Protection of your interest because you 
 say that you cannot compete with the foreign grower 
 who is so lightly taxed. What pretext, I would ask, 
 is there for your Protection that is not as good for 
 the Protection of the manufacturers ? 
 
 I will not refer again to those details of foreign 
 competition that I mentioned on a former occasion, 
 because it seemed to be admitted that this competi- 
 tion did exist and must continue. But every year the 
 
94 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 English manufacturer is called upon to produce the 
 article that he has been in the habit of producing at 
 a lower cost than he ever produced it before ; and 
 the merchant factor who receives orders from the 
 foreigner, receives also directions that if he cannot 
 execute the orders at a certain price he is not to 
 execute them. So that he has no alternative but to 
 execute them at a lower price or not to execute them 
 at all; and, consequently, he is constantly obliged to tell 
 his workmen that they must work at lower wages or 
 not work at all. 
 
 Well, this has been going on now for five or six 
 years in this country; and it has had the effect of 
 throwing many of our artisans out of employment. 
 The House will see that such a state of things must 
 continue to exist so long as the circumstances of the 
 country as compared with those of foreign nations, 
 remain unaltered ; and I want to know whether you 
 can expect us to be able to compete with foreign manu- 
 facturers whilst they can produce articles at a cheaper 
 rate, in consequence of cheaper living, than we can. I 
 am aware that it has been urged against me by some 
 persons in support of the Corn Laws that we must 
 not depend upon Foreign but upon Home Trade. I 
 do not deny that the Home Trade is beneficial : this 
 indeed is my case ; for I say that the home consumer 
 should be put in the best possible condition ; but the 
 home consumers are not the landlords only but all 
 others, and the cheaper the people can procure their 
 means of subsistence the more they will have to spend 
 in manufactured goods ; by the Corn Laws, however, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 95 
 
 you are diminishing the means of the home consumer 
 for the benefit of the landlord alone. 
 
 It has not been usual in discussing this subject to 
 put the case of the labourers prominently forward ; 
 and it is perhaps new to this Session to hear that 
 this is a labourers' question. 
 
 It is another class whose claims for Protection 
 have generally been put forward as a defence of the 
 Corn Laws ; the claims of what is called the British 
 farmer, the English grower. Now I really hope that 
 the case of the farmers will receive the fullest considera- 
 tion because I feel assured that this very valuable 
 class of men is under a considerable delusion on 
 the subject of the Corn Laws ; but I am aware also 
 that their attention has been called to it, and I think 
 that they will attend to this discussion of the question 
 with advantage. They will expect somethmg more 
 than vague declamations of their importance, or exag- 
 gerated statements of their distress. They are to 
 hear, it seems, from one side that the Corn Laws have 
 protected their interests ; but they wUl also hear from 
 the other side that the Corn Laws have not shielded 
 their interests, but, on the contrary, that they have in 
 fact occasioned their distress. I wish indeed that the 
 whole question turned upon this part of the subject 
 — I mean the interests of the farmers ; because this is 
 the only plausible plea, it appears to me, that has been 
 advanced in favour of the existing system. 
 
 I am very anxious not to be in error in any- 
 thing I may say in reference to this part of the ques- 
 tion ; and I hope that I shall be corrected should I 
 
96 FREE TEABE SPEECHES. 
 
 make any mistake in my statements. I want to 
 know whether the farmer can be considered in any 
 other light than that of a person who having a 
 certain property wishes to employ it as capital ia the 
 cultivation of land ; and whether he does not proceed 
 to business with the same spirit and purpose with 
 which any person might hire a vessel of the owner, 
 or borrow money, or engage in any other commercial 
 transaction. He is a capitahst and he proceeds in a 
 commercial spirit. Can there then be any doubt that 
 the price at which he is able to obtain his land must 
 be determined by the value of the produce of the land 
 and the competition of other capitahsts ? Those 
 capitalists who are in the same trade will not allow 
 him to obtain more than the average rate of profit ; 
 and, on the other hand, the land-owners will not permit 
 him to procure his land at less than the market rate. 
 Therefore, if a law were passed professing to fix the 
 produce of the land at 84s. or 645., it will not be 
 denied, I suppose, that the capitalist taking land would 
 reckon the value of his returns in accordance with 
 the fixed legal price. 
 
 But it is said that there are certain local charges 
 and burdens that press heavily on the farmer ; and 
 that it is in respect of these that Protection may 
 justly be claimed. These charges however do not 
 arise after the occupation of the land. They are ia 
 existence beforehand ; they are precisely estimated 
 and are as well known as those that are incident 
 to the occupancy of a house. If a man has not the 
 capital to occupy the land and to pay the charges that 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 97 
 
 would in the course of things arise, what business has 
 he to undertake to occupy it ? If he takes the land 
 with all these charges upon it, if the charges are high 
 and the value of the produce is high, a larger amount 
 of capital is required than otherwise would be. This 
 appears to be so evident that it will not perhaps be 
 disputed ; but then it is said that these charges place 
 our agriculturists under much disadvantage compared 
 with the foreign agriculturist ; and all the time it is 
 the very mode in which the farmer is supposed to be 
 indemnified that renders the payment of them more 
 onerous. I have no hesitation in asserting that the 
 manner in which the farmers have been indemnified, 
 as it is called, for these local charges has had the pre- 
 cise effect of enhancing them. Look at the outgoings 
 of the farmer: with the exception of rent there is 
 scarcely one that is not increased by the high price of 
 provisions. Look at the County Rate, the Poor Rate, 
 the taxes on servants, the taxes on horses, the as- 
 sessed taxes : which of these is not increased by add- 
 ing to the cost of provisions ? If these local charges 
 are too high for him, his business is to go to the person 
 fi*om whom he took the farm and to procure an abate- 
 ment in his rent : it is clear that he has no interest in 
 the outgoings being higher than is necessary. 
 
 But perhaps it will be argued to-night that it is 
 very true that the farmer has no interest in high out- 
 goings, but that somehow or other through the bounty 
 of heaven or the munificence of landlords, the farmers 
 of this country have done well since the Corn Laws 
 were passed ; and that it would be a thousand pities 
 
 VOL. I. n 
 
98 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to disturb what appears to work so well. If tHs 
 lias been the case it would not be difficult to charac- 
 terize the statements that have been made about 
 every other Session on the subject, by Members who 
 have been m the habit of declaring their inability to 
 express in adequate language the sufferings of the 
 farmers ! 
 
 A Noble Duke whose friendship to the farmers is 
 well known, has frequently brought forward the ques- 
 tion and commenced his remarks by saying that he 
 regretted that he had to detail again the same sad 
 story that he had so often repeated. A year after the 
 Corn Bill had passed, the Board of Agriculture reported 
 that ' the present deplorable state of the national 
 agriculture, bankruptcies, seizures, executions for 
 debt, imprisonment, and farmers becoming parish 
 paupers, are matters particularly mentioned by many 
 of the correspondents. There are great arrears of 
 rent, and, in many cases, tithes and poor rates un- 
 paid ; improvements of every kind generally discon- 
 tinued ; live stock gi'eatly lessened ; tradesmen's bills 
 unpaid ; general pauperism in the agricultural dis- 
 tricts : these circumstances are expressed in language 
 denoting extreme distress.' Within twenty years 
 five Committees have sat on what was termed the^ 
 ' unparalleled distress of agriculture.' 
 
 I have looked into some of the Reports that 
 have been made and I find that only about four or 
 five years after the Corn Laws passed, an inquiry 
 was instituted into the sufferings of the agricul- 
 turists ; and if I collect anything from this cir- 
 
iaOtJSE OF COMMONS. 99 
 
 cumstance it is that these distresses were produced 
 by the Corn Laws themselves. The Corn Laws 
 were denounced in these Reports as delusive in 
 principle and calculated to ruin every one connected 
 with the trade in grain. In 1826 the law was not 
 altered, and again there was distress. In 1828 the 
 law was altered, but the same principle was main- 
 tained in the Com Laws of 1828 that had existed in the 
 previous Laws. In 1833 and 1836 complaints were 
 again made to this House and a Committee again sat 
 upon the subject. On looking through this inquiry 
 I find many details and much evidence of the suffer- 
 ings of the farmers ; and although it may be seen that 
 leading questions were put as if to invite evidence 
 upon the subject of distress, yet the statements that 
 were made before the Committee corresponded with 
 those that had been made out of the House. 
 
 I was anxious to ascertain whether any great 
 land-owner was called to say whether he was suffer- 
 ing from distress ; I looked in vain for any such 
 evidence. It has indeed been said that the farmers 
 have been compelled to pay their rents out of 
 their capital ; but I see no evidence of the land- 
 lords reducing their estabhshments, their horses, or 
 their dogs, or of their quitting the country before the 
 usual season. 
 
 My conclusion from these circumstances is that 
 the promises made by the Corn Laws have been 
 delusive as regards the farmer, and that they have 
 caused the distresses that have occasioned these in- 
 quiries. The Com Laws proposed to fix a price 
 
 H 2 
 
100 FREE TKADE SPEECHES. 
 
 that was to be remunerative. In 1815, Parliament 
 told the farmer that he should have 80s. for his 
 wheat ; and the farmer trusting to the promises of 
 the House of Commons arranged to pay rent with 
 reference to that price. But how far did the law 
 realize the expectations it had raised ? Four years 
 after this price had been fixed it was reduced to 37s.; 
 but the farmer had already contracted with his land- 
 lord ; and therefore he found himself in distress and 
 compelled to pay the rent out of his capital : and then 
 the landlord in full receipt of his rent comes to this 
 House to detail the distress of his tenant and gets a 
 Committee to collect evidence of what we already 
 know. 
 
 This, incontestably, is the history of most of these 
 Committees of Inquiry. I say, then, that the same 
 principle that was adopted in the old Laws is pre- 
 served in those now existing. Under the old Laws 
 the promised price was 80s.; it is now 64s.; the Act 
 of 1828 promised that 64s. per quarter should be the 
 price ; and I find that amongst the witnesses before 
 the Committee of the House of Lords in 1836 there 
 was one farmer who declared that if the farmers had 
 been aware of what would happen they never would 
 have entered into the engagements they had made. 
 They expected that the price of produce would have 
 been maintained, and they had taken their farms 
 in 182cS upon that understanding ; but in 1832 and 
 1833 they found that wheat had fallen from 30 to 40 
 per cent. : they were therefore unable to meet their 
 engagements ; and then their ruin began. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 101 
 
 Such are the consequences of this system : the 
 farmer incurs expenses and has large outgoings all cal- 
 culated upon a certain price being returned for his 
 produce ; he finds himself paying rent according to 
 the price that had been promised but not receiving the 
 price. The House of Commons professes to regulate the 
 price ; but this they cannot do unless they also limit 
 the quantities, which they dare not do. The attempt to 
 combine the two only ruins the farmer and angers the 
 people. You tantalize the people with food under 
 their face at half the price, which they are forbidden to 
 touch ; and you encourage the farmer to believe that 
 foreign corn shall not be introduced. Then comes 
 a bad season in the country, which produces no 
 benefit to the farmer because the quantities are less 
 though the prices are higher than usual, and in the 
 end, a quantity of foreign grain produced at a much 
 less cost than that which has been grown at home, 
 is let in and the farmer finds himself ruined by the 
 fall that takes place in consequence. 
 
 If there happen to have been a bad season abroad 
 as there has been at home, then the farmer hears the 
 Laws denounced by the people in every town and city; 
 and he knows not what engagements to make from the 
 uncertainty of what may occur. And this is the man 
 for whose benefit it is said that the Corn Laws were 
 enacted ! The man who only cares to know how he 
 stands, that he may get a steady demand for his produce, 
 and ascertain what terms he should make with the 
 owner of the land ! One year he procures 120s. for his 
 com amidst the curses of the people ; the next it will 
 
102 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 probably be sold at 37s., through the intervention of 
 the sheriff who has seized it. And yet the maintenance 
 of the Laws is said above everything to be important 
 for securing a steadiness of price ! 
 
 Within the last four years we find a fluctuation of 
 100 per cent, in the price of corn. And the system 
 of the Corn Laws is maintained in face of all this ; and 
 in spite of the experience gained during the period 
 between 1773 to 1791 when the ports were open 
 upon paying a nominal duty of 6d. : then there was 
 more agricultural improvement goiag on, more gene- 
 ral contentment, less complaint of distress, and less 
 fluctuation than had existed at any other time ; and 
 this was the result of opening the ports. 
 
 I really pity the farmer as one of the indus- 
 trious and productive classes who wastes his labour 
 in fruitless efforts. He is a man of peculiar habits 
 and feelings, and I cannot help believing that he has 
 been practised upon in the passing of these Laws— 
 that he is in fact the victim of the Corn Laws. He 
 is strongly attached to the soil on wMch he was 
 born and which his forefathers dwelt on; he is a 
 man of little education ; he is not what is usually 
 termed a man of business ; he is unable to engage in 
 any other occupation than that to which he was 
 brought up ; he is averse to leave the place in 
 which he was bred; he is apt to make contracts 
 that are not justified by prudence ; and he is willing 
 to agree to any terms that the landlord proposes. 
 The landlord is aware of this ; and then begins that 
 dreadful struggle in which the farmer anxious to re- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 103 
 
 tain his occupation is unable to meet his undertakings. 
 The landlord exacts too much rent ; and the tenant, 
 desirous of keeping his word and expecting redress 
 from the Legislature or that things will turn out 
 better — deluded in fine by various circumstances, is 
 constantly undertaking to do that which he cannot do. 
 
 I am not speaking without proof; I am almost 
 repeating the statements that the farmers have made 
 upon the subject. I deny that there is any founda- 
 tion for the argument that the eflfect of the repeal of 
 the Corn Laws would be to throw the greater part of 
 the land out of cultivation. It is a mere idle tale to 
 talk of much land being thrown out of cultivation when 
 it is known that before the land of the country could go 
 out of cultivation every sixpence of rent must cease. 
 The farmers are now generally in arrears, and, there- 
 fore, it is difficult for them freely to express their 
 opinions on the operation of the Corn Laws ; but 
 they are every day growing more enlightened re- 
 specting their interests, and it will not be long before 
 they will declare themselves opposed to restrictions 
 the sole effect of which is to raise the value of land. 
 
 I have dwelt on the probable effect of the repeal 
 of the Com Laws on the farmer somewhat more at 
 length than the relative importance of this branch of 
 the subject deserves ; but I have done so because I 
 feel that of all the grounds of opposition that can be 
 urged against my Motion, this is the one that affords 
 the supporters of the present restrictions the most 
 plausible plea. 
 
 I now come to that view of the question which I 
 
104 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 conceive to be paramount to all otliers, because it is 
 really the only one that ought to be regarded in 
 any question : namely, the effect of the Corn Laws 
 on the community at large. But I must confess that 
 I approach the consideration of this branch of the 
 subject with a feeling akin to humiliation. Is it 
 in this enlightened age to be made a matter for 
 doubt and grave argument whether or not it is for 
 the advantage of the community to have the neces- 
 saries of life in abundance, and to be able to obtain 
 them at the cheapest rate ? The position is really an 
 absurd one. Surely it is as clear as that the sun wiU 
 rise ! So clear, indeed, that if the persons interested in 
 denying this advantage to the people were not a very 
 powerful class they would be met with ridicule and 
 contempt for attempting seriously to raise the ques- 
 tion ! In fact, were it not for the powerful interest 
 that one part of the community feels with respect to 
 this subject and the ignorance of another part, it 
 would be unnecessary to enter upon the discussion. 
 
 The loss sustained by the community fi-om the 
 existence of the Corn Laws is exactly in proportion to 
 the loss that the supporters of Monopoly contend they 
 would suffer if it were put an end to. If the landed 
 interest can justly oppose Repeal in order to avert loss 
 from themselves, the opponents of the Corn Laws are 
 fully entitled to claim consideration for the equivalent 
 loss that the community now suffers by reason of 
 the privation of cheap food. If the supporters of 
 the existing Laws oppose Repeal because the effect 
 ■yvould be to lower vastly the price of produce, is not 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 105 
 
 their opposition a proof that the community are 
 now sufferers to the extent of the difference between 
 the present price of produce and that reduced price 
 the advent of which the landed interest so much 
 fears ? Taking the calculations of the least sanguine 
 or prejudiced persons, it appears that at the very 
 lowest estimate the loss to the community by reason 
 of the contmuance of the Corn Laws amounts to ten 
 millions a year. This is equal to a poll tax of 8.s. 
 a-head, or a tax of 21. on each family in the kingdom. 
 With a large class of labourers it amounts to a 
 month's labour ; or, taking the number of hours of 
 labour during the day, on an average, at ten, a tax 
 of ten millions a year obliges the working-man to 
 labour three-quarters of an hour each day more than 
 he would have needed to labour if no such tax on 
 food existed. 
 
 The calculation that I have used applies to the tax 
 on wheat only ; but the effect of the tax on oats also 
 must be added to the loss sustained by the labourer, 
 because in many parts of the country oats are more 
 in request for general purposes than wheat. It is, more- 
 over, a mere calculation founded upon such data as are 
 within the reach of the opponents of the Corn Laws ; 
 but in order to ascertain the full amount of the injury 
 inflicted on the community by the existence of these 
 Laws I must first hear the calculation of loss anti- 
 cipated by the landed interest from their Repeal. The 
 one will be the best evidence of the other. 
 
 I now come to the consideration of the effect of 
 the Corn Laws on local and general taxation. First as 
 
106 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 regards local taxation ; take the Poor Rates. In the 
 Poor Law Unions already formed, 8,000^. a week is 
 spent in flour alone. But if flour be now double 
 the price it would be if the Corn Laws were re- 
 pealed, is not the difference between this 8,000^. a 
 week and the reduced price of corn incident on Repeal 
 just so much taken out of the pocket of the rate- 
 payer ? If the Guardians of the poor could put their 
 hands into the warehouses and take the flour at the 
 reduced price, would they not save an enormous 
 amount to the ratepayers ? 
 
 The case does not stop here ; because all money 
 unduly taken from the ratepayers for the mainte- 
 nance of the poor is so much deducted from the 
 amount that would be spent in labour. In any 
 given district this might be made the subject of strict 
 calculation ; for instance, in a Poor Law Union. The 
 whole amount of the Poor Rate is four mOlions and 
 a half ; and therefore looking at the subject pur- 
 posely in a practical point of view I really do hope 
 that as Hon. Gentlemen opposite are so anxious to 
 make this question a labourers' question, they will 
 also make it a ratepayers' qxiestion and consider 
 the vast amount that might be saved to them in 
 Poor Rates alone if the Laws were repealed. I hope 
 the ratepayers themselves will make it their own ques- 
 tion and that when about to pay their rates they wiU. 
 ask why they are called on to pay such large sums 
 when by the repeal of the Corn Laws they might get 
 bread for the poor so much cheaper. 
 
 Then as regards the County Rate : 100,000Z. a 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 107 
 
 year is expended in feeding the prisoners of the 
 dififerent bridewells throughout the country ; and 
 this portion of the County Rate, from which the 
 landed interest not long since applied to be exempted 
 and which they succeeded ia transferrmg to another 
 fund, is nearly doubled in consequence of the high 
 price of provisions. 
 
 The same remark applies likewise to all asylums 
 for lunatics, to hospitals, schools, and generally to all 
 public institutions. It is a most imjsortant considera- 
 tion in the expenditure of such institutions whether 
 bread is dear or cheap. 
 
 But if this argument is forcible as applied to 
 local taxation, it becomes far more powerful when 
 apphed to general taxation. There is scarcely a de- 
 partment of the PubUc Service m which a reduction 
 in the price of bread would not be felt. On the 
 Army, Navy and Ordnance, eighteen millions a year 
 are expended. As regards the Army, the amount 
 depends on the price of food in an additional respect 
 — every soldier being guaranteed the repayment of all 
 that he pays for bread above 6d. a loaf It is obvious 
 that if the Corn Laws were repealed this additional 
 expense would not fall on the public, because they 
 would not have to pay more than the 6d. per loaf. 
 
 The Miscellaneous Estimates amount to two 
 millions a year : in this branch of the public ex- 
 penditure also, a great change would be produced by 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 
 Now when the immense weight of the burden of 
 general taxation is considered ; when it is borne in 
 
108 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 mind what would be effected for the country by a 
 reduction of taxation ; when, too, it is recollected 
 that the great bulk of these taxes is raised from the 
 consumer, and that seventeen millions accrue from 
 the Excise alone, what argument of force can be 
 adduced against the reduction of expenditure by 
 cheapening the price of bread, accompanied as that 
 must necessarily be by an increase of commerce ? 
 There are many imposts that ought to be reduced 
 or taken off where the claims on the consideration of 
 the Legislature are very strong. Take the case of 
 the Post-Horse Duty. The utmost anxiety has been 
 evinced that this impost should be taken off, because 
 those who pay it are in the course of being ruined by 
 the changes brought about by the great improvements 
 made in the internal communication of the country. 
 The sufferers by these changes, however, did not, 
 when they were about to be made, come to the 
 Legislature for Protection against the locomotive 
 engines or against the railroads ; but they come now 
 for rehef because they find that the tax presses too 
 heavily on them. But if the Corn Laws were re- 
 pealed the keep of their horses would not cost them 
 what it now does, and so they would be better enabled 
 to bear what at present almost prevents them from 
 exercising their trade. 
 
 To take another and a greater branch of the 
 public economy — the Post Office. It has long been 
 desired to effect a most important alteration in the rates 
 of postage : one that would afford the public an advan- 
 tage more to be wished for, perhaps, than any other 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 109 
 
 that it is in the power of the Legislature to grant. 
 What is the obstacle to the immediate adoption of this 
 arrangement ? The impossibility of withdrawing 
 from the Revenue the difference that would be 
 hazarded by the adoption of the new plan. The 
 amount that might be saved in those branches of 
 the public expenditure to which I have referred 
 would in all probabihty enable the Government to 
 consult the wishes and interests of the public in 
 regard to the transmission of letters at a low and 
 uniform rate. Do the opponents of Eepeal imagine that 
 the people do not observe these inconsistencies ? Do 
 Hon. Gentlemen suppose that now that the attention 
 of the pubhc is aroused, calculations are not made 
 of the amount paid for the public service over and 
 above what would be necessary under a system of 
 non-restriction ? Is it supposed that the public dis- 
 regard these matters ; that they are not growing 
 discontented with a state of things that whUe it 
 much increases the taxation of the country, deprives 
 them at the same time of advantages which they 
 might enjoy under a better system ? 
 
 To turn also to the effect of these restrictive 
 Laws on the Shipping Interest. If any Hon. Mem- 
 bers connected with that interest are present, they 
 wUl be able to inform the House with more detail 
 than I can command, what are the injuries inflicted 
 on the Shipping Interest by the existence of the 
 Corn Laws. For my own part, I believe that one of 
 the most striking arguments in favour of Eepeal 
 is founded upon the grievances of the Shipping 
 
110 FEEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Interest. They sulFer not only from the increased 
 cost of provisions for their ships, but also from the 
 loss of the useful busiaess of conveying the foreign 
 grain which under a different state of things would 
 be consumed in this country. 
 
 An illustration of these evils came under my 
 notice a short time since when I was in Hamburg. 
 I there saw ships loaded with flour, the provisions for 
 which had been purchased at from 40 to 50 per cent, 
 less than the English merchants could have purchased 
 them at home. And whither does the House think 
 that those ships were bound ? They were actually 
 conveying to our own colonies — to Newfoundland in 
 particular, flour that had been ground at Hamburg ; 
 ground too at mills that were erected there in con- 
 sequence of the rejection of the measure introduced 
 by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth to facilitate 
 the grinding of corn in bond here for the purpose of 
 exportation ! 
 
 And these are Laws for the protection of productive 
 industry ! What would any foreigner think of the 
 intelligence of England if on asking how she con- 
 trives to support the weight of so enormous a debt — 
 a debt larger than the debts of all other civilized nations 
 put together, the debt of the East India Company 
 included — he were to be told that the only way in 
 which we can bear the existing burdens of the country 
 is by proposing and maintaining another burden of 
 still greater magnitude ? Yet such is substantially 
 the argument of those who plead that the maintenance 
 of the Corn Laws is necessary in order to enable us 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. Ill 
 
 to collect the interest of the National Debt. Their 
 position clearly is this : ' We have already two great 
 burdens on the country — the National Debt and 
 the expenditure necessary for the Public Service. 
 And the only way in which we can support them 
 is by protecting the landed aristocracy and main- 
 taining the restrictions on the importation of corn, 
 which keep prices high.' But is it a safe, just, or 
 honest principle of legislation, to limit the resources 
 of the nation in order to afford an exclusive advan- 
 tage to a particular class ? The Corn Laws may rob 
 A to benefit B ; but they do not create wealth ; they 
 do not benefit the public generally. And when it is 
 borne in mind that in order to afford the exclusive 
 Protection to one class, we are ruining the manufac- 
 turers and contracting the commerce of the country, 
 it is surely time for the Legislature to interpose and 
 to consider whether the danger and national loss that 
 would accrue from the contraction of the commerce of 
 the country would not be much greater than any that 
 could possibly arise out of a Repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 How could we meet our national engagements, 
 and support the public burdens ; how could the 
 credit of the country be maintained were it not for 
 our Foreign Trade ? By our Foreign Trade we were 
 enabled to support the expense of the long wars that 
 gave rise to this debt ; by our Foreign Trade we 
 were enabled to maintain the public credit under the 
 burdens that this debt imposed upon us ; and it 
 will be by facilitating and extending our Foreign 
 Trade that we shall ultimately, if ever, be enabled 
 
112 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to clear ourselves from this debt. The maintenance 
 and increase of the commerce of the country then 
 ought to supersede all other considerations. How are 
 the twenty-two millions collected from the Customs, 
 if not through the employment of the capital of the 
 manufacturer? Do we export the produce of the 
 soil? How, then, are the imports got, if not by 
 reason of the exported manufactures ? Yet the 
 landed interest, and those who support the exist- 
 ing Corn Laws, are endeavouring to undermine our 
 commerce ! 
 
 For my own part, I believe that but for the 
 restrictions that the Corn Laws have imposed on the 
 commercial activity of the country, we should have 
 been almost able to discharge our public debt, and to 
 have indefinitely extended our commerce. 
 
 It required such a scheme as the Corn Laws to 
 give a check to our career of commercial prosperity ; 
 and the promoters of them have fully effected this 
 disaster. They have lowered the price of labour ; 
 they have reduced food in particular countries to 
 a mere drug in the market, while they have raised 
 the price of it at home ; and thus they have offered 
 a premium to foreigners to engage their capital in 
 manufactures. If they persevere in this coiirse the 
 evils will continue, and the capital and the artisans 
 of the country will be yearly leaving it in larger 
 amount and greater numbers than they now are. 
 On the other hand, I am satisfied that if the Laws 
 were repealed, the progress of the existing evils 
 would be arrested ; English capital would be pre- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 113 
 
 vented from leaving the country ; and foreign capital 
 would not be further invested in manufactures abroad, 
 because the demand from our market for agricultural 
 produce would give employment to their capital in 
 agriculture. The price of labour would also be raised 
 and the foreign manufacturers would no longer have 
 the advantage of superabundant labour at too cheap 
 a cost. 
 
 One most important consideration in connection 
 with the present agitation of the question is that 
 there is now just time to correct the greatest error 
 into which this or any other country so circumstanced 
 ever fell : I allude to the fact that the tariffs of the 
 Zollverein and those of the United States wUl both 
 cease in 1841. In that year the States united iu 
 the Zollverein are to reassemble with the view of 
 determining whether they shall continue united ; and 
 it wUl much depend on the arrangements that we may 
 then be ready to make as to receiving the produce of 
 those States, how far the tariff to which they shall 
 then agree will be prejudicial or favourable to our 
 commerce. If in the meantime we prepare our- 
 selves to take their raw produce — their timber, and 
 their grain free from restrictions, we shall not only 
 check the investment of their capital in home manu- 
 factures (an operation that is rapidly progressing 
 under the system of mutual exclusion), but we shall 
 also gain by their importing our manufactures that 
 they now exclude. 
 
 Again, as regards the United States : our conduct 
 with respect to the restrictive duties may determine 
 
 VOL. I. I 
 
114 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 American capitalists in the course they will adopt — 
 whether they will invest their capital in agriculture 
 to supply the demand of our markets, or whether 
 they will persevere in their home manufactures. 
 Surely, then, when we consider the enormous ad- 
 vantages that would arise from the estabhshment of 
 commercial relations with Europe and the United 
 States on the solid basis of national interest — advan- 
 tages which it is almost impossible to exaggerate — 
 it will be acknowledged that the time has arrived 
 when the Legislature ought to take into consideration 
 what steps will secure those advantages, and avert the 
 injury that our commerce and manufactures must 
 sustain if the system recently adopted by foreign States 
 in consequence of our Corn Laws be continued. 
 
 A more important object than the extension of 
 our trade with foreign States cannot, I apprehend, 
 occupy the attention of the Legislature. It cannot 
 be denied that it is more reasonable to expect the 
 preservation of peace, the increase of commerce, and 
 the prosperity of manufactures, by interesting the 
 productive classes and capitalists of other countries 
 in our favour, and by affording them the means of 
 wealth, than by manning our Navy, or by making 
 treaties,, or forming merely personal alliances with 
 foreign princes. 
 
 I cannot conceive a higher duty for the Minister 
 who presides over the trade of this country or the 
 Minister who has the charge of the Foreign Depart- 
 ment, than to devote their best attention to the means 
 of extending our commercial intercourse with other 
 
HOUSE or COMMONS. Il5 
 
 nations. Such a course would not only have the 
 effect of increasing the national wealth, but it might 
 possibly allay the apprehensions that are now rife lest 
 the peace and security of our foreign possessions 
 should be disturbed. 
 
 We are constantly alarmed by intimations that the 
 Northern powers are opposed to our interests and policy. 
 Now, it would be impossible to have a better oppor- 
 tunity than the present for conciliating Prussia. If 
 we were in a situation to offer to that power the esta- 
 blishment of commercial intercourse on the basis of 
 non-restriction, the Prussian Government could no 
 more resist the will of their people when they request 
 to be allowed the advantages that we should offer 
 them, than the general Government of the United 
 States was able to bend the inhabitants of South 
 Carolina to the adoption of their tariff. 
 
 Perfect freedom to all men to exchange their 
 industry wherever they can get the utmost of what 
 they desire in return, is the best possible security 
 for the preservation of permanent peace. The accept- 
 ance of this principle would be a great mark of that 
 advanced civilization to which all men are looking 
 forward ; resistance to it wUl prove us to be still 
 under the dominion of the unreflecting selfishness that, 
 in all ages, has marred the various stages of human 
 progress. 
 
 I have at last arrived at the least satisfactory- 
 portion of the question : the obstacles existing in this 
 country to the adoption of a wise course of policy. 
 Though it be not whispered in this House or even 
 
116 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 surmised in another place, it is nevertheless a fact 
 that, wherever persons not directly interested ia the 
 maintenance of the Monopoly are assembled, it is 
 broadly and openly stated that the landholders of 
 this country are the persons who are opposed to 
 Repeal ; that they are in possession of the Legisla- 
 ture, in which their authority is unchecked and un- 
 controlled ; that they believe themselves to have a 
 dhect interest in the maintenance of the Corn Laws ; 
 and that nothing but actual fear will induce them to 
 consent to Repeal. 
 
 We cannot conceal from ourselves that if the 
 working classes had been less anxious about the 
 shadow than the substance, the Legislature might at 
 the present moment be acting under the most degrad- 
 ing influence to which men who have a public duty 
 to perform can be subject : the influence of fear. 
 
 I should be the last to desire that such an in- 
 fluence should be brought to bear on the supporters 
 of the Corn Laws. But in the absence of fear, it is 
 said that the landed interest will only consent to 
 Repeal if they can be shown that they will not be 
 injured by it. 
 
 In the meantime, however, the people have an 
 undoubted right to hear distinctly the grounds on 
 which the land- owners of this country are prepared 
 to maintain the Corn Laws. If it be on the ground 
 of the pressure of local taxation, let them submit to an 
 mquiry, and abide the result. If it be the pressure of 
 general taxation, then let them at once say whether 
 they are prepared to give up their Monopoly for a 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS 117 
 
 commutation of taxation. Whatever the grounds 
 may be, the public are entitled to claim that they 
 should now be specifically stated. 
 
 If the pressure of local taxation is alleged, then 
 I have a point from which I can start ; and I would 
 refer to what fell from one of the most intelligent 
 and, on this subject, one of the best informed of his 
 party — the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pem- 
 broke. The Right Hon. Baronet on a former occasion 
 stated that his assent to the Protective pohcy was 
 identified with his concurrence in the policy that left 
 a portion of the local taxation to be borne by the 
 landed aristocracy. Further, in the discussion on 
 the Malt Tax, he said he felt that if the Poor Law 
 continued in operation, and if Tithes were commuted 
 and the expense of county prosecutions were charged 
 on the public funds, there would then be nothing 
 left but the Malt Tax to justify the maintenance and 
 continuance of the Corn Laws ; and that if the Malt 
 Tax were reduced or taken off", the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws might be irresistibly urged on the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 These were the sentiments of the Right Hon. 
 Baronet. I presume, therefore, that I am justified 
 in contending that they are to be considered as the 
 sentiments of the supporters of the Corn Laws gene- 
 rally ; and hence I conceive that I have a right to 
 infer that the Malt Tax is the only ground on which 
 the continuance of the Corn Laws is justified. For 
 the other conditions named by the Right Hon. Baro- 
 net have been severally fulfilled : the Poor Law has 
 
118 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 reduced the rates 60 per cent. ; the expense of crimi- 
 nal prosecutions has been transferred from the coun- 
 ties to the Consolidated Fund ; and the Tithes have 
 been commuted. Seriously, however, does the Eight 
 Hon. Baronet suppose that the Malt Tax of four 
 millions and a half, which falls only indirectly on the 
 landed interest, is any indemnity to the pubhc for the 
 enormous loss they sustain from the existence of the 
 Corn Laws ? Upon what principle is it that because 
 the consumer does not consume barley enough to 
 satisfy the landed interest, we are to tax his bread 
 in order to enable him to consume more ? Was ever 
 such a principle recognized as this : because there 
 exists a tax on one thing, there ought to be a tax on 
 half a dozen others ? If any Protection were wanted 
 on account of the tax on malt, the natural and 
 corresponding indemnity would be to lay a tax on 
 foreign barley; not on foreign wheat, oats, or rye. 
 And is not foreign malt taxed ? I have accepted the 
 statement of the Right Hon. Baronet as being in 
 accordance with the sentiments of the party of which 
 he is so distinguished a member, not thinking it ne- 
 cessary to pay much heed to the arguments or asser- 
 tions of others who know less of the matter ; and, 
 consequently, I have proceeded on the assumption 
 that the Malt Tax is the only existing obstacle to the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 
 Since, then, we have this distinct declaration of 
 the opinions of the landed interest on the question to 
 go upon, I ask, would the Monopolists be willing to 
 relieve the country of the burden of the Corn Laws 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 119 
 
 if the Malt Tax were taken off ? For of this I am 
 sure, that all those who are now injured by the exis- 
 tence of Monopoly would be ready, nay, anxious to 
 get rid of it by acceding to those terms. The pro- 
 duce of the Malt Tax would be lost to the Revenue 
 no doubt ; but I am perfectly satisfied that the 
 public credit would not be endangered by such fetters 
 on the industry and commerce of the country being 
 removed. Four milKons and a half are a small sum 
 indeed compared with what might be raised through 
 the medium of taxation if the energy of the country 
 were allowed its full and natural play. 
 
 If the landed interest are not prepared to agree 
 to this compromise, then it is their bounden duty at 
 once to declare on what terms they are disposed to 
 give up the Monopoly they enjoy through the effect 
 of the Corn Laws. 
 
 I cannot conceive any compromise to be politic in 
 this case, save that of compensation or the commutation 
 of taxes. The question, however, is : Are the Monopo- 
 lists entitled to either ? Do they expect compensation 
 like the slave -owners ? Or do they complain that they 
 are unfairly taxed ? Whatever may be their right, it 
 is the interest of the country to concede it. Feeling as 
 I do that no interest ever required Protection until it 
 was unable to support itself, my objection to the Laws 
 is that they are perpetuating evil to the country. To 
 support and protect such interest at the expense of the 
 public and to the detriment of the community would 
 be to support and protect a positive evil. If there be 
 a question of compensation, let it be at once entered 
 
120 FREE TEABE SPEECHES. 
 
 into ; let there be no delay. If, at present, there 
 really exists any ground of claim, to postpone inquiry 
 would be but to add to the evil. Twenty years hence 
 such claims will be still stronger ; interests not known 
 now wiU then have grown into existence. I do not 
 hesitate to declare my conviction that if the dis- 
 continuance of the Monopoly of Corn could be at- 
 tained by the course, it would be a bargain were the 
 country to purchase every one of the acres that the 
 landed interest have declared would be thrown out 
 of cultivation, and were we to support at the public 
 expense every labourer who it is said would be thrown 
 out of employment by Repeal. 
 
 But I would venture to suggest to Hon. Gentle- 
 men opposite that it is treading on somewhat de- 
 licate ground for them to plead exclusive taxation 
 as a reason for the maintenance of the Corn Laws ; 
 because if an inquiry were gone into as to whether 
 they are more or less taxed than other classes, it 
 would raise the question of what exemptions from 
 taxation they now have. I will state one fact alone 
 to show the sort of inquiry you would subject your- 
 selves to : 50,000,000^. have been paid out of personal 
 property since the imposition of the Probate and 
 Legacy Duty, not one sixpence of which has been 
 borne by the landed interest. Thirteen millions 
 have been paid under similar circumstances on other 
 taxes in which the landed interest bore no share. I 
 have a list of duties, including those on horses, 
 servants, the auction duty, and other duties, from 
 the payment of all of which the landed interest are 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 121 
 
 free ; and this, it appears to me, is a great in- 
 justice to the rest of the community. When also we 
 consider (and I think that we are bound to consider 
 it as being matter of great importance) that the 
 principle of Protection or Prohibition applies to the 
 importation into this country of all articles of animal 
 food (for the importation of beef, mutton, and other 
 raw animal produce is actually prohibited), the House 
 will, I presume, agree with me that there is a very large 
 balance not on the side of the landed interest. 
 
 It is not my business to inquire what would be 
 the probable extent to which the landlords would 
 suffer from the reduction of rents by the repeal of 
 the Corn Laws ; for when I learn the enormous 
 losses to which the commtmity at large is exposed 
 by their continuance it is my care not to let a smgle 
 hour elapse without seeking to stop that loss. 
 
 But the landlords must know that great exagge- 
 rations are put forth as to the effect that the impor- 
 tation of foreign wheat would have on prices in the 
 Enghsh market. I have made inquiries as to the price 
 at which wheat could be imported if the ports were 
 opened. I have learned that in the Channel Islands 
 they export all their agricultural produce ; and that 
 aU the wheat and other corn they consume they im- 
 port from the Baltic. I find that the difference 
 between the price of produce in this country and in 
 the Channel Islands varied in eighteen years about 
 30 per cent. This difference decreased in proportion 
 as this country imported wheat from the Continent. 
 
 But if it should only be a difference of 30 per 
 
122 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 cent, in the price of grain when it is imported free 
 into Guernsey, as compared with what it is sold for 
 here, why is the community here to pay that 30 per 
 cent. ? And can it be thought that people will con- 
 tinue to do so when this qiiestion is thoroughly under- 
 stood ? Is it in keeping with the state of things in 
 the present day for the public to submit to any im- 
 post of this kind unless assured of its necessity ? I 
 ask the landlords of this country whether really they 
 see no ' signs of the times ' that should make them 
 pause before they determine to uphold a system that 
 is opposed by the industry, the commerce, the inteUi- 
 gence, and the masses of the country, and that they 
 cannot, beyond a limited time, be expected to retain ? 
 Can they blind themselves to the fact that the people 
 who now are chiefly demanding the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws are those who have hitherto placed confidence 
 iji the present Legislature, and who have relied on its 
 adequacy to redress the wrongs and reform the abuses 
 of which they complain ? And can they suppose that 
 the people are so weak in purpose or so meek in mind 
 that they will sit down quietly under disappointment 
 and rebuff; or that they will be diverted by the 
 obvious reflection that they have misplaced their 
 confidence in this House ; or that in vindication of 
 their opinion and under a sense of wrong they will 
 not call for those changes in the Constitution that 
 will place it more in unison with their interests ? 
 
 Surely, then, it is a matter of serious considera- 
 tion for the land- owners to determine whether they 
 will, for the paltry profit which the Corn Laws 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 123 
 
 afford them, forfeit the respect and esteem of large 
 classes of their fellow-subjects, and place in jeopardy 
 the great social and political position that, though 
 accident has conferred it upon them, it is yet in their 
 power by their conduct to confirm and maintain. I 
 must say that if after all that has been said on this 
 subject, and after all the important consequences 
 that have been traced to these Laws, the land-owners 
 should now refuse to consider them, they will be 
 taking a step the importance and responsibility of 
 which they cannot appreciate. 
 
 I conclude by moving : That the House resolve 
 itself into a Committee of the whole House to take 
 into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, regulating 
 the importation of foreign grain. 
 
124 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 IV. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 9, 1839. 
 
 On account of the mischievous effects of the Protective Duties on 
 foreign timber, Mr. Villiers, July 9, 1839, presented a petition from 
 Wolverhampton for their repeal, and moved for a Committee of the whole 
 House to consider the duties levied on foreign and colonial timber. Mr. 
 Poulett Thompson, then President of the Board of Trade, said that, ■ look- 
 ing over the whole customs of the country — or, indeed, of any country — he 
 did not believe that any other article would be found to which such an ex- 
 aggerated Protection was applied as that applied to timber ; ' he concurred 
 generally in the opinions and statements of Mr. Villiers, expressed his sense 
 of the necessity of drawing public attention to the very important subject, 
 and his special satisfaction that Mr. Villiers had brought it under the con- 
 sideration of the House ; and then dwelling with regret on the apathy of 
 Parliament to questions of the kind, he stated his belief that so long as 
 such apathy existed it would be idle for him to introduce a measure dealing 
 with them, and that under existing circumstances it would be useless to 
 press the Motion to a division. After a short debate Mr. Villiers, in reply — 
 having stated that had he considered the taste and feeling of the House to 
 be identified with the interests and wishes of the country, he should not 
 have obtruded his Motion on their attention, and that he brought it for- 
 ward for discussion believing that by repeated discussion only the country 
 would be brought to see the great interest it had in the alteration of the 
 existing system — said that in the present state of the House he did not 
 think it advisable to press his Motion to a division. 
 
 In seeking to draw the attention of the House to the 
 subject on which I have given notice of a Motion, I 
 am aware of the disadvantages under which I labour. 
 I know the distaste that the House has for matters 
 of this nature ; and I know how difficult it is at 
 the present season to win serious attention to any 
 question of public importance. 
 
 Still, as the subject is a momentous one, and as I 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 125 
 
 am constantly reminded by those who placed me here 
 of the mischievous effects of restrictions upon indus- 
 try and commerce, I feel it a duty to submit it to 
 the attention of this Parliament. 
 
 And, moreover, I must claim for it some degree 
 of opportuneness, since not only are we at this moment 
 about to review the relations in which we stand to 
 those provinces in America that are connected with 
 the trade in timber — in the hope of placing them 
 upon a footing more suited to the true interests of both 
 countries than that which they now stand on, but 
 we are also fresh from hearing a statement from the 
 Financial Minister by which it appears that we are 
 in a course of expenditure in excess of our iacome ; 
 and the case that I have to submit to this House 
 is one in which the resources of the country are, 
 perhaps, more prodigally, uselessly, and mischievously 
 "wasted than in any other with which a parallel can 
 be instituted. I believe that as regards the correct- 
 ness of this view, there is more unanimity of opinion 
 than in any other in which particular interests are 
 opposed to public good. 
 
 Indeed, the question of the policy of these duties 
 has been decided. They have been condemned by 
 every Administration that this country has had 
 for twelve years past ; they have been pointed at 
 by every independent politician ; and even that last 
 expedient has been resorted to with regard to 
 them by those who are beaten in fact and argu- 
 ment : namely, a Select Committee to inquire into 
 facts already known, which has been attended with 
 
126 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the usual result of eliciting further facts in confirma- 
 tion of the mischiefs alleged. 
 
 The story of these duties was told in this House 
 about eight years since. It is fortunately a short 
 one, and I will now only repeat it with the utmost 
 brevity. 
 
 I need not, perhaps, tell the House that this article 
 of necessary consumption is not produced in the 
 United Kingdom in quantities saf&cient for the de- 
 mand, and that the deficiency equals about 1,200,000 
 loads of timber annually. The countries that supply 
 us with timber are those in the North of Europe and 
 those in the North of America ; but whilst the wood 
 imported from the North of Europe is good and cheap, 
 that from the North of America is inferior and dear. 
 
 The House has now to learn in what proportions 
 the timber so characterized is imported into this 
 country. It is as follows : three-fifths of the timber 
 are from the country where it is bad and dear ; and 
 two-fifths, or somewhat less, from the country where 
 it is good and cheap. 
 
 A stranger to our policy, it seems to me, would 
 naturally ask by what contrivance it is that we 
 are induced to act in a manner so opposed to the 
 usual dealings of sane men. The answer to such a 
 question is that the Legislature causes a duty of 55s. 
 a load to be laid upon the good timber and one of 
 only 10s. upon the bad. 
 
 I believe that I am safe in making this statement 
 respecting the character of the wood that is unported 
 into this country ; for those who would maintain 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 127 
 
 the duties do not, if I understand them, dispute it ; 
 they do not contend that the community is as well 
 supplied from Canada as from Europe ; but they say : 
 ' Do not alter the duties, lest every consumer of 
 timber in England should resort to the European 
 market, where he would get the article the cheapest 
 and the best.' But, not to allow anything to depend 
 upon bare assertion, I will read a short extract from 
 the Report of the House of Lords on the subject, 
 which, I presume, will be received as an authority. 
 The Report says : — 
 
 North American timber is more soft, less durable, and every 
 description of it more liable to the dry rot, than timber from the 
 North of Europe. Eed pine, however, which bears a small pro- 
 portion to the other description of timber, and the greater part 
 of which, though imported from Canada, is the produce of the 
 United States, is distinguished from the white pine by greater 
 durability. On the whole, it is stated by one of the Commis- 
 sioners of his Majesty's Navy most distinguished for practical 
 knowledge, experience, and skill, that the Canada timber, both 
 oak and fir, does not possess, for the purpose of ship -building, 
 more than half the durability of wood of the same description, 
 the produce of the North of Europe. 
 
 Mr. Copeland, the most extensive builder and 
 timber merchant in London, also said in evidence 
 before that Committee that 'the timber fi-om the Baltic 
 in general,' speaking of Norwegian, Russian, Prus- 
 sian, and Swedish, 'is of a very superior quality 
 to that imported from America^ the bulk of which is 
 very inferior in quality, much softer in its nature, not 
 so durable, and very liable to dry rot.' 
 
 This evidence respecting timber, given nearly 
 twenty years since, was confirmed in every particular 
 
128 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 before the Committee of 1835 ; attached to the Report 
 of which will be found most instructive evidence on 
 the whole subject ; and none more so than that given 
 by the Honourable Member for BridjDort/ who in his 
 testimony has nearly exhausted the question. 
 
 But, in case any doubt should be cast upon indi- 
 vidual opinion, there are corroborating circumstances 
 that must satisfy every one : for instance, Canadian 
 timber is excluded from the dockyards ; and, also, in 
 all building contracts there is special provision that 
 none shall be used. There is one other fact, however, 
 that is more conclusive than any other : for the woods 
 admitting of comparison there are two prices in the 
 same market, the European timber fetching the higher 
 price. 
 
 The next point to notice to the House is the 
 pecuniary loss that the use of this inferior timber 
 at high price causes to the country, which it is not 
 difficult to estimate ; for having the different prices 
 in the market we can estimate the loss from quality, 
 and taking the duty from the gross price we learn 
 the difference of price. Now, examining the current 
 prices of the woods of the different countries in the 
 modes in which they are rated and brought to this 
 country, I find that on every load of pme timber we 
 lose "21. 5s.; on oak timber in the same proportion ; 
 on every hundred of deals we lose 1 11. ; and on every 
 thousand of staves, which are so much used in this 
 country for packages, staffs, &c., 38L Applying this 
 measure of loss per load to the whole quantity un- 
 
 ' Mr. Wai'burton. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 129 
 
 ported from the North American colonies, I reckon 
 the total loss — after deducting about 100,000 loads of 
 yellow pine which we must always get from Canada — 
 to equal the sum of 1,500,000/. ; an estimate that 
 will be found to correspond closely with others that 
 have been made. 
 
 For instance : Sir Henry Parnell in his work on 
 financial reform, which was pubHshed when we im- 
 ported much less timber than we do now, stated the 
 loss to be probably above 1,000,000/.; and a most able 
 and intelligent witness, Mr. Norman, in his evidence 
 before the Committee on Manufactures, Shipping, 
 and Commerce, stated that the trade must have cost 
 the country not less than 30,000,000/. in the last 
 twenty years. 
 
 I should also mention, perhaps, that, owing to 
 the peculiar mode of adjusting duties on timber in 
 the log and deal, the Revenue further sustains a 
 loss of about 12s. a load, without any advantage or 
 convenience to the consumer. 
 
 Now, I contend that this sum of 1,500,000/. is not 
 a sum that should be taken from the community, 
 unless it be applied to the purposes of revenue, or 
 unless it be shown that the loss is a necessary loss, 
 or that there are countervaihng advantages. But 
 it is the peculiar enormity of these special duties 
 that not one sixpence of the sum goes to the Revenue ; 
 it is not at all necessary or advisable to continue 
 them ; and not any of the advantages that are pre- 
 tended to result from them are at all adequate to the 
 evils they entail. 
 
 VOL. I. K 
 
130 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 It is, moreover, a peculiarity of tlie proposed 
 changes in the mode of levying the duty that they can 
 be effected with benefit to the consumer, and without 
 injury, nay, with some advantage to the Revenue ; 
 or with some advantage to the consumer, and great 
 benefit to the Revenue — for a given amount of timber 
 will be imported. Whereas a duty such as is now 
 collected cannot in any way be satisfactorily ad- 
 justed : so little profitable is it to the Revenue or 
 the consumer as it exists at present. 
 
 I own that when I consider that timber is a 
 considerable element in production, and that to all 
 classes of producers, whether manufacturing, agricul- 
 tural, or the labouring classes, it is of the utmost 
 importance to have it good and cheaj), I regret ex- 
 tremely that it should have been deemed a fit subject 
 for taxation at all ; but as it has been, the Revenue 
 ought certainly to derive the full benefit of the tax 
 without prejudice to the public. 
 
 This subject is one of far more consequence to the 
 labouring classes than it is usually judged ; but if 
 we bear in mind the miserable dwellings of many of 
 the labouring classes of this country, and the degrad- 
 ing influence of a wretched dwelling upon every poor 
 man, we shall at once perceive that it is impossible to 
 overrate it. 
 
 I have obtained a copy of a Report on the dwell- 
 ings of some of the poorer classes in a large manufac- 
 turing town, which I will just refer to because I 
 believe that it describes their condition in nearly 
 every populous manufacturing town in the kingdom. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 131 
 
 It is a Report made of the dwellings of 1,384 families 
 in the borough of Stockport : — 
 
 Statement of the number of families dwelling in cellars, 
 and also of the number of families dwelling in single rooms, in 
 Stockport. Extracted from the rate-book, June, 1839. 
 
 1839. Rbmaeks. 
 
 Families dweUing in eel- These cellars are mostly 
 
 lars in Stockport . 1,253 without drains, cold, damp, and 
 
 very dark. The poor families 
 who occupy them are subject 
 to fevers, and often lose their 
 health and cheerfulness, where- 
 by they are unable to get a 
 living. There are instances of 
 two famihes, and lodgers be- 
 sides, being huddled together 
 in one cellar. 
 Families dwelling in single These rooms are seldom 
 
 rooms in Stockport . 131 more than 12 feet square ; and 
 
 in that space there are (in some 
 
 Families . . 1,384 instances) two families and two 
 
 lodgers — that is, ten or twelve 
 persons in one room. 
 
 I am led to comiect this statement with the price 
 of the materials of building, from the account I get 
 of the condition of the poor in countries where timber 
 is cheap. I was much struck by a passage in. the 
 work of an intelligent traveller in Norway — Mr. 
 Laiag — who observes upon the comfortable dwelliags 
 of the peasants, and is led into reflections on our 
 Timber Laws in consequence. He says : — 
 
 This population, also, is much better lodged than our labour- 
 ing and middling classes, even in the South of Scotland. The 
 dwelling-houses of the meanest labourers are divided into several 
 apartments, have wooden floors, and a sufficient number of good 
 
 K 2 
 
132 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ■windows ; also, • some kind of outhouse for cattle and lumber. 
 Every man, indeed, seems, like Eobinson Crusoe, to have put up 
 a separate house for everything he possesses. Whoever has ob- 
 served the condition of our labouring population, wUl admit the 
 influence of good habitations upon the moral habits of a people. 
 The natives of New Zealand have dwellings more suited to the 
 feelings and decencies of civilized life than the peasantry of a 
 great proportion of Great Britain and Ireland, who live in dark, 
 one-room hovels, m which not only household comfort and clean- 
 liness are out of the question, but the proper separation of the 
 sexes can scarcely be maintained. It is from the operation of 
 our Timber Duties that the working class in Great Britain, and 
 particularly in Scotland and Ireland, is so wretchedly lodged — 
 an evil by which the whole commmiity suffers. The timber of 
 America is not adapted, either in size, strength, durability, or 
 price, for the woodwork of small houses ; for the beams, roof 
 timbers, or other parts in which there is strain or exposure, it is 
 considered totally unfit ; and were it stronger, the waste in re- 
 ducing its logs to the proper dimensions prevents the apphcation 
 of it to such small buildings. The duty upon the kind of wood 
 alone suitable for the poor man's habitation — which is the small- 
 sized logs, deals, and battens of Norway or the Baltic coast — 
 renders it impossible for the lower, or even the middle classes, to 
 lodge themselves comfortably, or even decently. It affects the 
 price, not merely of the good building material which these 
 countries could furnish at a cost lower than the duty now levied 
 upon it ; but it raises our own wood, which no prudent man can 
 use in any work that is intended to last for twenty years. If our 
 labouring classes understood their own interest, they would find 
 that the Timber Duties press more heavily upon their comfort and 
 well-being than even the Corn Laws. 
 
 And now, having traced the evil effects of these 
 duties upon this country, I come to the question, 
 What excuse is there for their continuance ? I am, 
 of course, prepared to hear those old watchvi^ords of 
 Monopoly — Ships and Colonies — started again upon 
 this occasion, and to be told the old story that the 
 British Navy depends upon her Commercial Marine ; 
 
HOUSE OP COMMONS. 133 
 
 that this particular Monopoly looks to the colonies, 
 and that the colonies are the natural customers of the 
 manufacturers ; that without the continuance of this 
 and other monopolies they could not purchase our 
 manufactures. And seeing the success with which 
 these silly fallacies have been urged hitherto, I should 
 shrink from attempting to battle with them, if I did 
 not daily observe the advantage of discussion ; and if, 
 moreover, I did not believe that by means of discus- 
 sion the truth will prevail. 
 
 After having given a careful attention to all the 
 information that can be obtained on this subject, I 
 must say that there is not any point on which I 
 would speak with more confidence than that the 
 British Navy is in no way dependent for its efficiency 
 upon that part of the Mercantile Marine that is em- 
 ployed in the Timber Trade ; and with respect to the 
 colonies, that their prosperity has been greatly de- 
 ferred, and that they have been seriously injured in 
 being tempted, by means of these duties, to divert 
 their capital and industry from their more natural 
 channels of employment in order to devote them 
 to the most hazardous, gambling, and demoralizing 
 business in which they could have engaged. 
 
 In examining the evidence before the Committee 
 already alluded to I find that some witnesses, who from 
 their local acquaintance with our North American 
 Colonies seem to have been thoroughly competent to 
 speak on the subject, and who also were unbiassed by 
 any local interest, have given important evidence 
 to this eff"ect : I allude particularly to Mr. M'Gregor 
 
134 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 and Mr. Revans. They state that the colonies 
 have ample resources to enable them to support 
 their trade with other countries ; and that nothing 
 but the bounty that we have placed upon their 
 timber has prevented them from giving to those 
 resources a more ample development. Many products 
 are enumerated for which each seems to have its 
 appropriate section in British America. Canada has 
 its agriculture; Newfoundland its fisheries; Nova 
 Scotia its mines ; while New Brunswick would by 
 this time, probably, have become one of the finest 
 grazing countries in the world, but for the seduction 
 of the timber bounty which has left it now to depend 
 for its resources on British America. And it is urged, 
 with some force, that unless these colonies had other 
 resources than the Timber Trade it would be a species 
 of fraud practised upon emigrants to tempt them to 
 settle as agriculturists. 
 
 But it appears that the colonies are far from 
 depending upon the Timber Trade alone for the pur- 
 chase of imports. In Canada, for instance, the im- 
 ports amount to 1,500,000^., of which not more than 
 450,000?. can be paid for ia timber : the rest being 
 paid for by the expenditure of our Government and 
 that of emigrants who bring out money with them, 
 and by products other than timber. 
 
 It is stated that this trade is a hazardous and 
 gambling one. Some of the risks of it are pointed 
 out in the evidence given before the Committee. For 
 example, the fluctuations in price here are upon the 
 whole price of timber; but any vai'iation of price 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 135 
 
 must, in fact, fall upon the original cost of the timber, 
 which makes the speculation in every consignment 
 much more precarious. In Newfoundland no timber 
 is exported ; and in Nova Scotia it is the least item 
 of her exports. New Brunswick seems to be the pro- 
 viuce most interested in the Timber Trade ; and this 
 is chiefly on account of its greater proximity to the 
 mother country ; but it is the misfortune of the 
 colony that it is so. There is also great hazard 
 attending the floating of the timber down the river 
 to the ports of shipment ; so great indeed that the 
 general belief in Canada is that one-third of this 
 timber is lost before it reaches port. This of course 
 enhances the value of the cargo that reaches its destina- 
 tion in safety ; and this is the sort of prize that tempts 
 many to venture their capital in the lottery ; but 
 though some realize fortunes in it, it is the ruin of 
 hundreds of others who engage in the Timber Trade. 
 Now, with respect to the influence that this 
 employment and its accompanying circumstances 
 exercise over the character of the people engaged as 
 lumberers, there appears to be but little difference 
 of opinion. I can conceive no greater nuisance to 
 a well ordered community than to have periodical 
 visitations of such people as the lumberers are de- 
 scribed to be. They go in bodies, and live in the 
 woods together ; they are not subject to any of the 
 social influences of civil life ; and perpetually yielding 
 to the greatest temptation to the use of ardent spirits, 
 their constitutions are impaired, and they become reck- 
 less in their morals and habits. 
 
136 FEEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 It is another fact, I believe, also no longer in 
 dispute, that the business of lumbering offers no 
 advantage or employment to the emigrant on his 
 first arrival : besides being unskilled in felling the 
 wood, his object is to settle as an agriculturist. And, 
 in truth, the Timber Trade affords employment to 
 those only who going out without any means of their 
 own, succeed in finding work in some of the lumber- 
 ing establishments about the ports. But, as most of 
 the emigrants leave this country because people have 
 not the means of employing them here, what policy 
 is it that should tax this country 1,500,000^. in order 
 to find them employment across the Atlantic? It 
 would be far better for the people to keep theu' money 
 in their own pockets. 
 
 Is it not idle, moreover, to talk of people beiag 
 destitute of other employment in Canada, and of the 
 necessity of establishing this Monopoly for the purpose 
 of affording it ? Why, the future well-being of the 
 colony depends upon a constant tide of emigi'ants flow- 
 ing in from this country and occupying the land ; and, 
 as it might be expected, evidence was given before 
 the Committee of the demand for labour existing in 
 Canada. It was also stated that all the more recent 
 and flourishing settlements in Upper Canada are 
 quite independent of the Timber Trade. In short, 
 so clear is it that the prospects of these colonies 
 are not increased by the Timber Trade, that gross 
 injustice is seen to be inflicted by it ; and therefore 
 what remains to be done is, to ascertain how to get 
 rid of the Monopoly with as little injury as possible to 
 the capital vested in the Trade. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 137 
 
 The more tHs part of the question is examined, 
 the greater are the facilities for solving it that present 
 themselves ; for fortunately there is, as it were, a trade 
 in wood springing up with the United States ; and 
 the forests in the States of New York and Vermont 
 are now so much cleared that it is better economy 
 for those States to import wood from Canada than to 
 resort to their own forests. This gives employment 
 to some of the principal saw-mills in that province, 
 which is the most valuable kind of capital I find 
 engaged in the Timber Trade. 
 
 But there is little reason to believe that the 
 majority of the people in Canada attach any im- 
 portance to the Timber Monopoly ; they appear to 
 me to care far more for good government than for any 
 such adventitious advantage as we give them by such 
 means ; and in my opinion our chance of retaining 
 those colonies depends far more upon the system of 
 governing them, than it does upon the maintenance 
 of the Timber Monopoly. 
 
 Of one thing I am sure : the people of this country 
 will never tolerate the continuance of an annual loss 
 of 1,500,000?. to satisfy the colonists by means of 
 Monopoly, concurrently with the payment of nearly 
 an equal sum for the purpose of ruling them by force. 
 The present appears to be a favourable moment to 
 redress, on the one hand, their political grievances, 
 and, on the other, to estabhsh commercial relations 
 on a sounder footing. And really it is difl&cult to 
 conceive (with the example of our trade with the 
 United States as it exists at present) how any person 
 can venture to say that we cannot have an unpro- 
 
138 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 tected commerce with the countries immediately 
 adjoiaing. 
 
 The class that I expect will be found most eager to 
 maintain the Timber Monopoly will be what is termed 
 the Shipping Interest ; for that is the class apparently 
 the most tenacious of the advantages gamed by it. 
 Nor will I deny that if we were to import less timber 
 from Canada it would affect the capital of some ship- 
 owners engaged in the Timber Trade — in the same 
 way that other people are constantly affected by 
 changes and improvements that supersede their em- 
 ployments. But that the trade in bringing timber 
 from Canada can be maintained, without a most cul= 
 pable sacrifice of the public interest to private advan- 
 tage, if we can get timber from elsewhere at a lower 
 freightage, I emphatically deny. And as we are told 
 that the Shipping Interest is at stake in the main- 
 tenance of this trade, I cannot now do better than 
 produce evidence to show the proportion and character 
 of the shipping so employed. 
 
 In the first place, there are not more than 1,816 
 voyages made to this country by trading vessels 
 employed between North America and the United 
 Kingdom. Of these about 447 are made for the 
 transport of other things than timber, which being 
 deducted from the total, leaves 1,369 for the freight- 
 age of timber. But, as every vessel makes two 
 voyages, in order to ascertain the number of ships 
 employed in the Timber Trade, the number of voyages 
 must be divided by two, which gives us 684. And 
 as from the special qualities of the North American 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 139 
 
 pine we should always require about 100,000 loads of 
 Canadian timber, equal to 222 cargoes, the number 
 of the 111 vessels used to carry them would have 
 to be deducted from the 684, leaving only 573 that, 
 if the anticipations of the ship-owners were reahzed, 
 would be deprived of employment in the event of the 
 cessation of the presently existing Canadian Timber 
 Trade. 
 
 And, granted this loss of employment, what pro- 
 portion does the House suppose that these ships bear 
 to the whole Mercantile Navy of the country and her 
 dependencies? The number of registered vessels in 
 1836 amounted to upwards of 25,500 ; and it is to 
 prevent the subtraction of 573 ships from the whole 
 amount of British tonnage that we are told that 
 the Shipping Interest of the Kingdom is in danger, 
 and are required to submit to an annual loss of 
 1,500,000/. to avert it. 
 
 The annual consumption of the shipping of this 
 country from wear and tear and casualties of all kmds 
 is, I believe, estimated at 1,200 ships or thereabout. 
 But what is it but gratuitous assumption to assert 
 that the loss of the business thus entailed will be sus- 
 tained by the Shipping Interest of this coimtry if 
 the Timber Monopoly were abolished? It proceeds 
 upon the idea that foreign shipping will engross 
 the whole of the increase in the Baltic trade, on the 
 supposition that we should obtain all our timber from 
 that quarter. Why, this was the old cry against Mr. 
 Huskisson when he altered the Navigation Laws. It 
 was said then that the Shipping Interest was to be 
 
140 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ruined ; that we were to be beaten out of the seas by- 
 foreigners ; and that the Prussian Navy would ride 
 ascendant on the ocean ! I should have thought that 
 the alarmists upon that occasion would have lost 
 their credit as prophets for ever in this country, con- 
 sidering the results that attended the change. For what 
 happened, contrary to all that was predicted? Just 
 this : more ships were buUt and employed in a given 
 period after those laws were changed than before ; 
 and while foreign shipping has since increased 11^ 
 per cent., English shipping has increased 29 per 
 cent. And not only this, but the Mercantile Marine 
 of Prussia has diminished in a most marked manner 
 since the period when the Reciprocity Treaty was 
 signed. 
 
 From experience, then, there is httle reason to 
 expect the results that are predicted in the present 
 case. On the contrary, there are reasons that render it 
 peculiarly improbable ; for the ships that are usually 
 employed in the Timber Trade are ships that have 
 become unfit for service of any other kind, and that were 
 built and employed for other purposes. Now to meet 
 an increased demand for shipping, it is far more likely 
 that an adequate supply of cast-off ships would come 
 from this country, which has the most extensive 
 marine in the world, than from countries that have 
 hardly enough to meet their own wants. 
 
 What has been the case lately with respect to 
 grain that has come chiefly from the Baltic? Has 
 the carrying of that fallen entirely into the hands of 
 foreigners ? Or is it not the reason of the extravagant • 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 141 
 
 freights tliat the ship-owners have been lately getting, 
 that they have had an extraordinary demand for 
 vessels for this purpose ? 
 
 There are only two reasons why foreigners should 
 navigate their ships cheaper than we do: one is that 
 the cost of materials for building their ships is less ; 
 and the other is that the provisioning of their ships 
 is cheaper. Now the obvious effect of reducing the 
 duties on timber would be to lower the building mate- 
 rials of ships. And with respect to provisions, the 
 cost would be the same to all ships trading in the 
 Baltic. 
 
 But, in truth, the only just conclusion at which 
 we can arrive from past experience is that there are 
 at present no people that we know of who can com- 
 pete with us in navigation. The only people in the 
 world who could — and who will eventually, if any do 
 — are the Americans. Yet what is actually the case in 
 America? Why, that whereas in the year 1821 the 
 proportion that our shipping bore to that of the 
 United States in the trade with the United Kingdom, 
 was 7i per cent., the proportion of our shipping now 
 is 35 per cent., so that even there we have been 
 gaining ground. 
 
 It might be asked why, if they have such decided 
 advantages over us, foreigners do not supersede us 
 where the trade is open to them as well as to us? 
 And why we command the trade, as we do, between 
 Europe and the South American States? Or, indeed, 
 why before the Navigation Laws were altered the 
 preference was invariably given to a British ship 
 
142 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 whenever tlie trade was free? There is, in fact, a 
 decided superiority in our vessels and our seamen ; 
 and — which everybody else can see but a ship-owner, 
 who has always got Monopoly in his eye — nothing 
 can benefit the ship-owner more than to extend our 
 commerce in all quarters of the world. This can 
 only be done by removing from it restrictions of 
 every kind ; and it really is lamentable to see a class 
 of men like the ship-owners siding so frequently with 
 those who take narrow and selfish views of their own 
 as well as then' country's interest. 
 
 I believe that it is usual on these occasions with 
 those who uphold the Timber Monopoly, to urge in its 
 behalf the interest of the manufacturers who it is said 
 are anxious to preserve the Monopoly for the sake of 
 the colonial market. I do not believe that the manu- 
 facturers are so foolish. I beheve that they are too 
 wise to distinguish between foreign customers and 
 colonial customers ; and that what they feel the most 
 is, that they have been deprived against their will of 
 their foreign customers by these and similar restric- 
 tions upon then* commerce. And more especially do 
 they complain of the duties on timber, which have 
 tended so materially to disturb their intercourse with 
 the N'orth of Europe. It is my firm opinion that 
 no step could be taken that would be more satis- 
 factory to English manufacturers than one that 
 would tend to revive again a trade with those 
 countries : they feel, and most justly so, I think, that 
 every hour that this commerce is suspended, fresh 
 manufacturing rivals are springing up there ; and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 143 
 
 that notlimg wotild stay that competition more than 
 greater facilities being afforded for the introduction 
 of our goods. 
 
 I am glad to see that my Hon. Friend the Mem- 
 ber for Leeds has a notice of a Motion this even- 
 ing on the subject : the time is now at hand when 
 the countries, imited in the ZoUverein, are about to 
 agree upon the terms on which they wish to rest their 
 commercial relations with other countries in future ; 
 and I believe that it will just depend upon what we 
 are disposed to agree to in the matter of corn and 
 timber, whether we shall be excluded still farther 
 than we are at present from their markets. 
 
 Bearing in mind, therefore, the great importance 
 that belongs to this question, the vast issues that it 
 involves for the productive classes of every kind in 
 this country, and having shown, as I consider, that 
 those who seek to continue the Timber Monopoly 
 have no pubHc or national ground on which to rest 
 their claim, I hope that the House will consent to 
 the Motion, which I now propose to it : That this 
 House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole 
 House to consider the duties now levied on foreign 
 and colonial timber. 
 
144 
 
 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 V. 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 1, 1840. 
 
 The financial state of the country in 1840 was very serious : whilst 
 expenditure was increasing, the deficiency of revenue was no less than 
 a million and a half. Depression in trade continued without a prospect 
 of improvement ; and the sufferings of the people were so heart-rending, 
 that the members of a deputation which waited on Lord John Russell to 
 seek relief for them in the Repeal of the Corn Laws, utterly broke down 
 in attempting to detail them. It was under these circumstances that 
 Mr. Villiers, seconded by Sir George Strickland, brought forward his third 
 Annual Motion on Wednesday, April 1. After two adjournments, the 
 debate — in which the Earl of Darlington, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Morpeth, 
 and Sir Robert Peel amongst others had taken part — came to an end on the 
 Friday following. Between one and two o'clock in the morning, after 
 many of those who would have voted with Mr. Villiers had gone away in 
 the belief that the House would not be divided, Mr. Warburton moved the 
 adjournment of the debate until the following Monday. This Motion was, 
 however, pressed to a division and lost by a majority of 116, the Noes being 
 245 and the Ayes 129. Mr. Warburton, to avoid a division on the main 
 question, then moved the adjournment of the House, and this being agreed 
 to the original Motion became a dropped Order. 
 
 In rising to propose the Motion of which I have 
 given notice, I beg to apologize to the House for its 
 postponement till this evening. I assure the House 
 that the delay proceeded from a cause that I could 
 not control : it arose from indisposition. An excuse 
 that I could, indeed, offer with great force this even- 
 ing, and one that together with several other con- 
 siderations present to my mind makes me regret 
 more than ever that it is still in my hands to bring 
 this question before the House ; but having learnt 
 that many persons expected it to be discussed this 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 145 
 
 week, I determined that, if possible, no other delay 
 should occur on my account. 
 
 The question is now assuming a very serious 
 aspect in the country. It is arousing the interest 
 and engaging the attention of the great mass of the 
 community ; and, whatever the House may think, 
 questions of this character, affecting as they do the 
 commerce, the employment, and the condition of the 
 people, excite among them an interest far exceedmg 
 any other. I wish, therefore, that the j)resent IVIo- 
 tion were in the hands of those who could do more 
 justice to it than myself ; and still more that it were 
 in the hands of those who have the power to do 
 justice to the people. 
 
 I hoped, moreover, that ere now the landed 
 proprietary of this country, in consideration of the 
 deep distress that pervades and bears down the pro- 
 ductive classes of our community, would have given 
 some sign of an intention to relax the rigours of 
 their Laws ; and that what has hitherto been denied 
 to the claims of justice would have been granted on 
 the grounds of mercy. But three months have 
 passed away since Parliament assembled, and not 
 a whisper of such an intention has been heard. On 
 the contrary, the same querulous note has been 
 sounded in another place about agitation, and the 
 same haughty and ill-placed observations respect- 
 ing its object have been uttered ; while in this House 
 we have seen the usual efforts made to produce 
 some proof of opinion in favour of the Corn Laws, 
 which reveal with tedious sameness the influence 
 
 VOL. I. L 
 
146 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 commonly used by landowners over their dependents, 
 and their determination to maintain the Corn Laws 
 unchanged. 
 
 However, as I mooted this matter before in 
 this House, some confidence is placed in me that 
 I will not suffer it to slumber. I cannot, there- 
 fore, allow more time to elapse without asking the 
 majority of the House to reconsider the decision 
 they gave on it last Session, and seriously to review 
 the grounds on which they rested their decision. 
 These grounds I apprehend to have been that the Corn 
 Laws work well ; that they have satisfied the purpose 
 for which they were enacted ; and that they ought to 
 be maintained. 
 
 It was a bold thing to pronounce such a conclu- 
 sion last Session ; but it wUl, I think, require more 
 courage to repeat it. And therefore I shall re-state 
 some of those facts and arguments that led me to 
 the conviction that the Laws are bad ; that they 
 have worked ill ; that they have caused and are still 
 causing great loss and suffering to the productive 
 classes ; and that they now cast upon the community 
 a fearful addition to those burdens that it is at ah 
 times compelled to endure. Were I to state further 
 what it is that prompts me to press this matter again 
 on the House, I should say that it is because of my 
 conviction that not a day has passed since the last 
 discussion on the Corn Laws on which, either from 
 personal suffering or greater intelligence, fresh con- 
 verts have not been made to the repeal of these 
 Laws ; whUe, at the same time, I do not believe that 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 147 
 
 one human being could be produced who, having been 
 either indifferent or opposed to the Corn Laws before, 
 has since become a convert to their continuance. I 
 regret the importance that I must attach to this 
 circumstance. But it will greatly outweigh any 
 argument that 1 could adduce on the subject ; for 
 I cannot persuade myself that unless there were a 
 general impression in both Houses of Parliament 
 that either great ignorance or general indifference 
 prevails among the people on the question, those 
 who take a prominent part in these discussions 
 would utter the things that we hear said about it. 
 Xot only do we hear that the Corn Laws are a 
 necessary evil, but also that they are a positive 
 advantage ; and thus the advocates of iiepeal have 
 it cast upon them to prove once more that an 
 abundance of the essential of life, which gives further 
 means of satisfying the wants of life, is better than 
 the dearness and scarcity that deteriorate the con- 
 dition of the mass of the people. 
 
 Still, if the task has to be performed again, the 
 present moment is perhaps favourable for the pur- 
 pose ; for it is difficult to believe that those who 
 argued against the Corn Laws last year would have 
 made the statements they did make could they have 
 known how quickly events would follow that would 
 completely refute them ; and it is scarcely credible 
 that their decision would have been what it was had 
 they foreseen the sad advantage that the distress in 
 the country gives us this year. 
 
 Nevertheless I am not going to deny that there 
 
 L 2 
 
148 FliEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 has been great misapprehension on the subject of the 
 Corn Laws ; that mystery has been artfully thrown 
 round it ; and that thousands have only now come 
 to view it in the true simplicity of its character. On 
 this account I shall discuss it with all the calmness 
 and deliberation that should be devoted to a matter 
 admitting of dispute ; and I shall, as I have done on 
 former occasions, first proceed to consider the object 
 of the Laws. 
 
 The object of the Corn Laws may be simply 
 stated to be the limitation of the quantity of food 
 imported from abroad, for the purpose of raising and 
 maintaining the price of that which is grown at 
 home. This is the object as it is to be collected from 
 the avowed purpose as well as the provision of the 
 Laws. The pohcy of such legislation seems to belong 
 to the present century ; and we are now living under 
 the third legislative experiment that has been made 
 in it. In 1804 Mr. Western's Bill passed into law ; 
 this was followed by the Corn Law of 1815 ; and at 
 the present time we are bound by the enactment of 
 1828. Each one of these measures has professed the 
 same end : namely, to maintain lands in cultivation, 
 to keep the people in employment, and to secure to 
 the cultivator a certain price for his produce. To 
 each, also, have the same objections been offered : 
 namely, that such policy must be at variance with the 
 public good ; that the interests of the community 
 must be sacrificed by maintainmg particular soils in 
 cultivation ; and that, as the price of produce depends 
 upon circumstances beyond the reach of legislation, 
 
HOUSE or COMMONS. 149 
 
 such a Law is calculated only to mislead those who 
 rely upon it. 
 
 The justice of such objections with respect to 
 two of these laws is now matter of history. Mr. 
 Western procured his Act by stating that without 
 such a measure thousands of acres would be thrown 
 out of cultivation, and that a proportionate number 
 of labourers would be thus rendered destitute. Now, 
 I believe that I state the fact accurately when I say that 
 after the passing of that Bill the ports were never 
 closed ; and that, so far from land going out of cultiva- 
 tion from this circumstance, within six or seven years 
 afterwards produce had risen nearly 300 per cent, 
 above the price that he had fixed as remunerative. 
 
 The Corn Law of 1815 proposed to make the com- 
 munity always pay for its food the price that it had 
 reached during the war and a depreciated currency. 
 I have a right to say that this was the dehberate 
 intention of the Legislature, because there was an 
 Hon. Member at that time in the House whose eager 
 and able exertions on the occasion to expose what 
 he called the iniquity and injustice of the Law 
 excited general attention ; and he made a distmct 
 proposition that if such a law were to pass it should 
 not exist beyond the time when we should place our 
 currency on a more sure basis — in short, when we 
 should resume cash payments. I need not say that 
 I allude to Mr. Baring, who has since become Jjord 
 Ashburton. He made this proposition to the House ; 
 but it was rejected. 
 
 It is no longer matter of dispute that the Law 
 
150 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 of 1815 was a failure in every respect. It failed to 
 give profit to the producer ; it failed to give plenty 
 to the people ; it failed to maintain steadiness of 
 prices ; and it failed even to do that which might 
 have been expected from it : namely, to give wisdom 
 to those who projected it. It was introduced amidst 
 the curses of the people : it expired without favour 
 from its friends. 
 
 Nevertheless in 1828 its failure does not appear to 
 have been ascribed to its object, but only to the means 
 adopted for its attainment. It was still thought 
 possible to fix by law the price at which the produce 
 of the land could be sold, and to secure the cultivator 
 the price that he expected. It was maintained that 
 the means had simply not been discovered by which 
 this object could be attained ; and it was ui 1828 
 that the discovery was thought to have been made, 
 when the scheme of a Sliding Scale was suggested 
 in order to meet the wishes of the agriculturists. 
 
 We must now consider whether this scheme, 
 devised in 1828, has succeeded or not. There are 
 some who think that it has worked well, that it has 
 accomplished every object intended; and it is for them 
 to prove their case. I certainly am of opinion that 
 it has but verified every prediction of evil that was 
 likely to attend it ; and I think I can show that it 
 has done so. I do not think that the public require 
 much information on the subject ; but they are 
 watching this discussion, and I trust that they will 
 ponder well on which side the truth prevails. 
 
 Now, I contend that the present Corn Laws are a 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 151 
 
 complete failure ; and when I sa}'- so, I refer to their 
 avowed object rather than to that which may have been 
 intended though not avowed : I contend that they 
 have failed to benefit agriculture, though they may 
 have succeeded ia greatly raising the value of land. 
 
 And here it is very important to distinguish 
 clearly between what is called agriculture and the 
 ownership of land. These interests are in many 
 respects distinct ; but because they are the same in 
 some respects, the land-owners claim for themselves 
 all the arguments usually advanced in support of the 
 Laws that have reference solely to agriculture. The 
 fact is, the connection between the cultivation of land 
 and its ownership is not nearer than that between a 
 house and the business carried on in it ; or that be- 
 tween the merchant and his banker who may lend him 
 the capital to conduct his business ; or that between 
 the manufacturer and the person of whom he pur- 
 chases the raw material. These respective interests 
 are in some material points distinct, and nobody con- 
 founds them ; and there is no more reason for confusion 
 between the interests of the cultivator and the owner 
 of the soil than between the other interests. The 
 land-owner may hardly know where his property is ; 
 he may be unable to distinguish one kind of produce 
 from another ; he may live abroad, and know no one 
 connected with his property but the receiver of his 
 rents. The cultivator, on the other hand, may be 
 equally ignorant of any of the circumstances con- 
 nected with the ownership of the land beyond the 
 price he pays for its use, 
 
152 FEEK TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 This distinction is so obvious tliat I should not 
 have troubled the House by stating it but for the 
 singular confusion of the interests of owner and culti- 
 vator which is made in arguing for the Corn Law of 
 1828, though they are in many respects different and 
 it is important that they should be so viewed ; and 
 because under the general term agriculturists we hear 
 the most exaggerated pretensions put forward, based 
 on the assumed identity of the interests of landlord, 
 farmer, and labourer. 
 
 With regard to the necessity or policy of legis- 
 lating at all for the particular interest of the agri- 
 culturist or the farmer, what does it consist in ? 
 What would he desire the law to do for him if it 
 could do anything ? Probably to enable him to get 
 the return for his capital that he expected ; and this, 
 I suppose, is Avhat every capitalist would wish. He 
 would like to be made sure in his calculations, and 
 to obtain the profit he expects ; and this in truth is 
 what the Corn Laws promise to do for him : they do 
 hold out the prospect of something like certainty and 
 steadiness on these points. 
 
 We have now to examine how far they have 
 realized the expectations they raised. The first fact to 
 be observed is, that since the passing of the Corn Laws 
 there has been every variation in the price of produce 
 and the farmer has experienced great distress and 
 disappointment, which at least seems to lead to the 
 conclusion that these Laws have not averted the 
 evil apprehended by the agriculturists. The question 
 therefore is, whether this variation, this distress and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 153 
 
 disappointment, have been actually caused by the Corn 
 Laws. That this has been the case can, I believe, 
 be proved almost to demonstration. I deduce my 
 evidence from the agriculturists themselves. Not to 
 have referred to their opinions collected by this House 
 seems to have been an omission in the previous dis- 
 cussions upon the Corn Laws. Those who complain 
 of these Laws have usually been so much occupied 
 with showing their gross injustice that they have 
 as yet paid little attention to the evidence against 
 them by those for whose interest they are professed 
 to be maintained. But there has been a great body 
 of evidence collected by the House, and given under 
 circumstances that compel us to credit it, to which 
 public attention ought to be directed ; for I am 
 sure that if there is one conclusion before another to 
 which a candid inquirer would arrive after reading 
 this evidence, it is that the Corn Laws are extremely 
 prejudicial to the farmer, and that they have occa- 
 sioned distress and disappointment to all of that class 
 who have trusted to them. 
 
 This is a grave consideration, because there are 
 many who now distinctly see the injustice of the Laws, 
 but who from fear of the consequences of their Repeal 
 to the persons who have invested capital upon the 
 faith of their continuance, are yet slow to call for it. 
 
 At the risk of wearying the House, and hoping 
 to be excused by the importance of the subject, I 
 shall proceed to read some extracts from the evidence 
 collected in 1836 by the Agricultural Committee 
 appointed in that year. 
 
154 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 The first person whose evidence I will advert to 
 is Mr. Ellis, a LeicestersHre farmer, who was asked 
 whether the distress of the time had any connec- 
 tion with the Corn Laws. He said, in reply, that he 
 thought the duty too high because it gave a fictitious 
 value to land and gave the farmers an expectation of 
 something that could never occur ; and thus ficti- 
 tiously maintained the value of land. The question 
 was then put to him whether he thought the Corn 
 Laws induced the tenants to make larger offers than 
 in the result they had been able to pay. He answered 
 in the affirmative ; and said that farmers were prone 
 to expect high prices, and had been anticipating returns 
 that they were not likely to get. 
 
 Mr. Parker, an Essex farmer, was asked : — 
 
 Do you consider that the distressed state of those farmers 
 can be at all attributed to the rents not having been lowered 
 sufficiently in time ? — I should say very materially, the landlords 
 not prudently lov^ering their rents earlier than they have done. 
 
 The farms would have been in better condition ?— Yes ; it has 
 been by persistmg in the high rents that the farms would have 
 been worked out of condition, and then no person would take 
 them except at a very low rent. 
 
 Do you think that they (the Corn Laws) hold out hopes of a 
 continuance of a higher rate of price than can ever be realized ? 
 ■ — The Corn Laws have been in operation but a few years, they 
 commenced with large foreign supplies ; we have been only put 
 on our own growth the last four years ; I do not thmk if the 
 present Laws continue that we should be often interfered with 
 by foreign supply. 
 
 Take the whole of the farmers in the county of Essex, do you 
 think that they are possessed of as much capital now as they 
 were in 1821 ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Then they have been labouring now for fifteen years, and 
 have expended a great deal of industry, and skill, and capital, 
 with no return at all, as a body ? — They have been parting with 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 155 
 
 their capital, a great many of them, to their landlords, and to 
 other persons, whose charges upon them were excessively high. 
 
 Mr. Cox, of BuckinghamsHre, gave his evi- 
 dence : — 
 
 For the last three years you have been farming that land to 
 a profit •? — Decidedly not to a profit. 
 
 Should you say that the cultivation of Buckinghamshire has 
 fallen off within the last eight or ten years ? — I should say so, in 
 the neighbourhood in which I live. 
 
 In what respect ? — The land is getting very foul and over- 
 cropped ; in some places driven further than it should be. 
 
 Mr. Jolin Houghton, a gentleman of great ex- 
 perience, was also examined : — 
 
 Have you not arable farms in the county of Buckingham, 
 over which you are steward ? — Yes, I have. 
 
 What is their state now compared with the state of the grazing 
 farms to which you allude ? — On the heavy clay lands the dis- 
 tress is very great, more than it is on the turnip and barley lands, 
 or grass land. 
 
 How do you account for that distress upon the clay lands ? — 
 From the low price of wheat. 
 
 Do you find that the capital of the farmers has been diminish- 
 ing ? — Certainly ; I think the great distress has been on the heavy 
 land farms. 
 
 Have the farmers been paying their rents out of their pro- 
 duce, or out of their capital ? — If you take the heavy clay land, 
 certainly out of their capital. 
 
 Then we have the evidence of Mr. John Rolfe, a 
 farmer of Buckinghamshire : — 
 
 Do you use wheat for any other purpose but that of human 
 food now ? — I have not done it ; some have ground wheat for the 
 pigs ; some have given it to their horses, but that was princi- 
 pally the grown wheat of the last harvest but one. 
 
 What is the cost of the cultivation of your farm per acre 
 now, as compared with what it was some years ago ? — The cost 
 
156 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 of cultivation is very much the same ; there is a little difference 
 in the price of labour. 
 
 Can you state how rents are paid in your district ? — Eents 
 have heretofore, till the last two years, been very well paid. 
 
 How have they been paid since 1883 ? — They have been paid 
 very badly. 
 
 Even on the light soils you speak of ? — Yes. 
 
 There is more wheat grown upon land now ? — Yes. 
 
 Supposing there should not be a correspondiag demand for 
 wheat in proportion as that class of land increases, it must make 
 the heavy clay land less profitable ? — Yes. 
 
 You do not complain of the price of mutton now ? — No. 
 
 Of wool ?— No. 
 
 Of barley ? you cannot expect much increase in that ? — No, 
 not much. 
 
 Oats ? — Oats we should wish for a little uicrease. 
 
 Beans ? — If we had 4s. a quarter more we should not have 
 much fault to find. 
 
 The chief complaint is on account of the depression in the 
 price of wheat ? — Yes, that is where the farmer is suffering 
 most ; that is where he looks for his rent in the spring of the 
 year, when he should have the price of his wheat to raise the 
 money for his rent ; when he is looking for a large sum of money 
 to meet his payments ; when he comes to thresh out and carry 
 to market, his expenses almost take the whole price. 
 
 What will become of the landlord ? — We shall be all beggars 
 together. 
 
 Mr. John Cui'tis, another Buckinghamshire far- 
 mer, was next examined : — 
 
 Has the capital of the farmers m your opinion diminished ? — 
 I should say considerably. 
 
 Will you state in what way farmers are worse o& ? — In the 
 first place, they have cropped their land hard, and it is now 
 getting into bad condition ; it is getting foul, and the stock 
 diminishes. 
 
 Now looking at the different descriptions of soils ; first of all 
 the grass, has the produce of your grass enabled you to pay the 
 rent upon the grass land? — What little grass I have is very 
 good ; that is the best part of my farm. 
 
 You have stated that the condition of the labourers is good ; 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 157 
 
 you mean those that are employed ? — Those that are employed ; 
 and there are very few out of employment. 
 
 Has the Poor Bate been reduced lately ? — Yes ; the Poor 
 Law Bill works well with us. 
 
 And Mr. Jolin Kemp, an Essex farmer, equally 
 bore testimony to the decreasing capital of the 
 farmer : — 
 
 Do you consider, then, that the quantity of wheat in the 
 market has been the cause of the depression of the price ? — I 
 should say so. 
 
 Has the capital of the farmers in your neighbourhood, 
 and under your knowledge, diminished or not ? — Very much 
 diminished. 
 
 What was the rate in your parish previous to the passing 
 of the Poor Law BlU, and what is it now ? — Our expenditure in 
 the parish used to be 1,600^., and last year it was not more than 
 1,200Z. 
 
 What is the state of the small farmer about you ; the man 
 who rents a hmidred acres ? — As bad off as the poor man. 
 
 Are farmers paying rents from their profits or their capital ? 
 — From their capital. 
 
 Taking the labourers as a body, are they as well employed as 
 they used to be ? — They have been very well employed for the 
 last three years. 
 
 Do you think that upon the average, the higher price, from 
 a scarce season, compensates the farmer for the deficiency of his 
 crop ? — No ; for at the time when corn was so high, about six 
 years ago, during the wet seasons, we were certainly worse off 
 than we are now, and wheat was much higher. 
 
 I now turn to the evidence of Mr. Thtirlwall, of 
 
 Cambridgeshire : — 
 
 What, ui your opinion, is the condition of the tenantry gene- 
 rally in your neighbourhood ? — I think verging on insolvency, 
 generally m the most desperate state that men can possibly be. 
 
 Mr. Charles Page, of Essex, farmer, was asked : — 
 
 Have you lost or gained this last year upon your farm ? — In 
 fact, I have lost every year since I have been in business. 
 
158 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Have you lost principally upon the wheat or the barley crop ? 
 — The loss upon the wheat crop I think is the most material. 
 
 And Mr. George Babbs : — 
 
 Do you believe that the farmers are paying their rent out 
 of capital, or out of the profits of their farms ? — I believe the 
 farmers have been paying their rents out of the capital they 
 employ. 
 
 Is that your case ? — It has been my case. 
 
 Has the laud been cropped harder in your neighbourhood 
 than it iised to be ? — I thmk it has. 
 
 Nothing more hopeful is to be learned from Mr. 
 Charles Howard : — 
 
 Taking the period smce the last Committee sat in 1833, what 
 do you consider to be the comparative state of the farming 
 interests now and at that tune ? — Decidedly and progressively 
 worse. 
 
 Do you take into your consideration every species of land, or 
 one species of land more than another '? — I thmk upon the sheep- 
 farms, the upland farms, from the increased demand which there 
 has been for sheep, the distress has rather decreased ; sheep have 
 been very high. 
 
 Then with respect to the lowland farms ? — Their situation 
 has been progressively much worse. 
 
 You stated that in consequence of the depressed state of the 
 farmmg interest of that county, the landlords have permitted a 
 considerable portion of the old grass lands to be ploughed up ; 
 has that tended to precipitate the affairs of the tenant, or other- 
 wise ? — It has kept the tenant longer upon his legs. 
 
 But it has more materially deteriorated the condition of those 
 farms upon which the permission was given ? — Decidedly so. 
 
 Either you think that the land will go out of cultivation and 
 produce a diminished supply, or you think that the Legislature 
 will interfere in some way so as to produce a rise m price ? — 
 Exactly. 
 
 And you think that is the view of those persons that buy 
 those farms at present ? — I do believe it is. 
 
 Mr. Robert Hope, a Scotch farmer, cannot cer- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 159 
 
 tainly be quoted as a favourable witness for the 
 present Corn Laws : — 
 
 Have you ever thought anything about the present Corn 
 Laws, whether they are beneficial to the farmer or not ? — Yes, 
 they have been often discussed, but it is a very general feeling 
 among those that pay corn rents, that they have not been hither- 
 to beneficial, but the very reverse of beneficial. 
 
 What is your reason for that opinion ? — It induced men to 
 offer more than has been well realized by the price of corn, 
 because it was generally expected from the Corn Laws that 
 prices would be kept up to something like what they promised ; 
 that the import of foreign com would be restricted, and by that 
 means keep up the price of the home growth to 70s. or so. 
 
 How has the Corn Law disappoiated your expectation ? — 
 Because it led those that took farms at money rents to give a 
 much higher rent than they would have done. 
 
 Then is it the opinion of you and those other gentlemen that 
 have considered the subject in the way you mention, that the 
 present Com Law ought to continue, or do you think that any 
 change would be beneficial to the farmer ?■ — From what we ex- 
 perienced in the year 1831, I am disposed to think that a change 
 might be more beneficial to the farmer, by reducing the scale at 
 which foreign corn is imported. 
 
 You have stated that you consider the existing Corn Law is 
 prejudicial to the farmer ; is your opinion founded upon the cir- 
 cumstance of there having been a miscalculation as to the effects 
 to be produced by the Corn Laws, or upon the working of the 
 Com Laws themselves ? — I think by the present working of the 
 Corn Laws that it may run prices too high for the interest of the 
 farmers in years of scarcity ; before any foreign corn can be 
 admitted into the country, prices may be run up so high as to be 
 prejudicial to the interest of the farmer, because, in such a year 
 as we had ia 1831, we could not grow so much wheat as we 
 had to pay in rent. 
 
 If the result of this Com Law should be to produce great 
 fluctuations in price, you would think that effect would apply to 
 all farmers ? — I think it has been prejudicial to those that even 
 pay a money rent, because I am sure that if it had not been for 
 the Corn Laws they would not have given so high a money rent. 
 
 Mr. James Tison, an English farmer, gave this 
 evidence : — 
 
160 FREE TRABE SPEECHES. 
 
 What causes have there been to depress the state of the 
 farmers of stiff land ? — High rents ; it is my opinion, fomided on 
 the testimony of farmers themselves, that many of them are 
 farming under war rents, while they are selling their com at 
 peace prices. 
 
 The consequence of the rents being kept up too high has 
 been that the land has been overcropped ? — Yes ; when I have 
 conversed with farmers, this appears to be the conclusion 
 they have come to, that they have paid their landlords what 
 they ought to have paid to the labourers. If they had paid it to 
 labourers they would have had value for the money ; whereas they 
 paid it to the landlord, and, of course, received nothing back, 
 and they had so much less to lay out upon their farms. 
 
 On the light soils, have the tenants been met by the land- 
 lords with a reduction of rent ? — They have not needed so much 
 reduction as they have upon the hea^'ier soils. 
 
 It appears from your evidence, therefore, that it is a question 
 very much between landlord and tenant as to the present condi- 
 tion of the farmmg interest ; that is to say, that the landlord has 
 more in his power than can be done by the Legislature ?— 
 Decidedly ; I do not see what the Legislature can do, except with 
 respect to the Poor Law, to benefit the agriculturist effectually. 
 
 Looking at Mr. Coke's estate, in Norfolk, could any number 
 of his tenantry afford to give him any rent whatever, with wheat 
 at 5s. a bushel ? — Yes, I think with a good crop they could. 
 
 Then you tlimk that the want of mtelligence and the want of 
 skill has gone a great way towards producing the depressed state 
 of the farmers ? — Accordhig to my view of it, such is the state of 
 society in this country, that for a person to do weU in any branch, 
 whether in agriculture, manufacture, or in commerce, there must 
 be a combination of intelligence, practical skill, capital, and in- 
 dustry ; and if any of those be wantuig, whether it is in agriculture, 
 or in mercantile affairs, a person is almost sure now to go wrong ; 
 and when I have traced a great number of cases of individual 
 distress among farmers to that cause, one of those has been 
 wanting. 
 
 What do you conceive to be the effect of the present Corn 
 Laws upon the consumer ? — I think they have a very unfavour- 
 able effect ; they operate as a very great hindrance to the ex- 
 tension of trade, to the manufacturing and commercial interests, 
 because, under the present system of Corn Laws, we can receive 
 nothing in return from those countries which would take our 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 161 
 
 manufactured goods, if tliey could send us their corn in return ; 
 for instance Prussia ; our trade would be immense with Prussia 
 if we could take their corn in return. 
 
 What do yoti think is the average price which may be fairly 
 calculated upon by the farmer under the existing Corn Law ? — 
 Under 50s. a quarter for wheat. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Bennett gave his evidence : — 
 
 Do you think, with reduction of rent, and the reduction of 
 prices, the farmer can cultivate his land at a profit ? — Looking to 
 the seven years back, and having taken those farms mider very 
 low prices, I have not a question that some may do it profitably, 
 and I have no doubt some will. 
 
 At what price do you estimate wheat for the next seven 
 years ? — If I was going to take a farm myself, I should not 
 expect, nor would I calculate for the next seven years, to have 
 wheat above 5s. to 6s. a bushel. 
 
 Will the Duke of Bedford's tenants, who have retaken those 
 farms, be able to pay the rent for which they have just agreed, 
 with wheat at 5s. a bushel ? — I think they will. I think the 
 majority do not expect to see it at much more. 
 
 The disappointment and ruin attested by Mr. 
 Andrew Howden, a Scotch farmer, are deplor- 
 able : — 
 
 If you had been sold off m 1820, do you think you would have 
 been better off than you are now ? — I do not know that mme is 
 a fair case to be taken as a general case, because I started very 
 poor in Ufe, and I have had a hard struggle, and other circum- 
 stances that contributed to assist me. I am the only remainmg 
 farmer in the parish where I was brought up ; except myself, 
 there is not a farmer, nor the son of a farmer, remammg withm 
 the parish but myself. 
 
 What is the reason of their having all gone away ? — The 
 money rents that were exacted of them. They all conceived that 
 they were to have 80s. a quarter, and their calculations were 
 made upon that. It soon appeared that that could not be rea- 
 lized, and they were not converted, and ruin has been the con- 
 sequence. 
 
 VOL. I. M 
 
162 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Then there has been a great change of tenancy in your neigh- 
 bourhood ? — There has. 
 
 And that has been caused by the fall of prices ? — Yes, and 
 the want of accommodation on the part of the proprietors. 
 
 In your opinion did the Corn Law that was made in 1815 
 deceive both the landlord and the tenant ?— It did. I believe 
 that the calculation upon which they took at that time was 
 almost universally il. a quarter. 
 
 The Corn Law having promised a price of 80s., failed to per- 
 form it ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. William Bell, a Scotcli farmer, was opposed 
 to tlie Sliding Scale : — 
 
 What is your reason for supposing a fixed duty would be pre- 
 ferable ? — By the present Corn Law, when the price approaches 
 near the rate at which the foreign corn can be brought into the 
 market with a profit, the prices may possibly be run up to that 
 rate by artificial means. Thus a great quantity of corn would 
 be improperly liberated and thrown upon the niarket, and this 
 might probably depress the market for the whole season. Now, 
 at a fixed duty, that could not take place. 
 
 I must not omit the evidence of Mr. George 
 Robertson, another English farmer : — 
 
 Supposing that mutton had borne the same proportionate 
 price when wheat fell to 40s., do you think the Scotch farmer 
 would then have been enabled to make a good living ? — The 
 Scotch farmer would have tried something else than wheat ; he 
 would have extended his grass cultivation, and that would have 
 tended to reduce the price of meat still more, no doubt. 
 
 And if the price of barley had been also reduced ? — Those are 
 all regulated by the demand of the manufacturing and commer- 
 cial classes. 
 
 Do you know anything of the sale of the manufacturing and 
 commercial classes ? — My belief is, that they were never more 
 prosperous. 
 
 How long has that been the case ? — It has been gradually 
 coming on for years. 
 
 In the face of that increasing prosperity, has there not been a 
 
HOUSE OF COJrMONS. 163 
 
 decline in the price of wheat ? — -That may be accounted for by 
 the great additional average crops for a series of years. 
 
 Are you able to perceive a great increase in the demand 
 of the operative classes ? — Very great in flour and meat, and 
 I have no doubt the mcreased price of barley is caused by a 
 demand for malting in England. 
 
 Supposing the supply and demand for labour to remain the 
 same, will not eventually the price of labour fall in proportion 
 to the fall in the price of food ? — At present the demand for 
 labour for the manufacturing interest is so great, that we can 
 scarcely get hands for necessary operations of agriculture. 
 
 You have been asked, with reference to the price of wheat 
 govemmg the price of meat, can you anticipate a very great falling 
 off in the price of meat, when you consider that the popula- 
 tion of this country is increasing so rapidly, and that the manu- 
 facturing employment of that population is so great as it is at 
 present ? — No. I think the price of agricultural produce must 
 keep up ; that is to say if the manufacturing classes prosper and 
 live as they are doing. 
 
 And now I will not trouble the House with any 
 further extracts. It is impossible to read this evi- 
 dence without being convinced that the farmers are 
 induced by the Corn Laws to promise for their land 
 rents that they are unable to pay ; and that they are 
 tempted by the price that these Laws profess to 
 guarantee them, to devote much of their capital to 
 the growth of wheat ; and therefore, as wheat is the 
 most expensive crop they can grow, the loss they 
 experience is proportionally severe if they are dis- 
 appointed in the price they expect. And this. Sir, 
 I think I may venture to state with confidence to the 
 House, since I find in the admirable address that you 
 published to your constituents that it is the con- 
 clusion to which you arrived, after devoting more 
 attention and time to the Committee of 1836, and to 
 
 M 2 
 
164 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the subsequent consideration of the evidence, than 
 perhaps any other Member. I find it to be your 
 conviction that the Laws are actually prejudicial to the 
 farmer, and in the manner in which I have stated 
 them to be so ; and you, Sir, also seem to agree in the 
 conclusion to be drawn from much of the evidence 
 given by agriculturists themselves : namely, that they 
 must not depend for good fortune upon the adventi- 
 tious aid of such legislation as the Corn Laws, but 
 upon what all other capitalists must rely — upon the 
 skUl, experience, and intelligence that they bring to 
 their pursuit. 
 
 But now I wish the House to mark the conse- 
 quence of the farmer's being tempted to direct his 
 attention chiefly, or to apply his capital largely, to 
 the cultivation of wheat, and, by neglecting the 
 culture of other produce, and by the overproduc- 
 tion of wheat, to reduce its price below the sum 
 that would be remunerating : he becomes suddenly 
 alarmed and disappointed at his loss, and withdraws 
 much of his capital from such employment. Thus 
 he narrows the breadth which he sows with wheat ; 
 and then we see how the supply of the community 
 with food at a reasonal^le rate — another purpose 
 which the Laws are supposed to have — is fulfilled. 
 The first result of growing less wheat has been, of 
 course, to raise the price, which occurrmg simul- 
 taneously with a bad harvest, has inflicted distress 
 on the public for the last eighteen months ; and now, 
 after paying a great additional price for their food, 
 they are suff'ering from an unusual deficiency of it, 
 
HOUSE OF COJIMONS. 165 
 
 and have not any prospect of an improvement. There 
 is, in fact, every probability that prices will keep up, 
 and that great sacrifices will yet have to be made by 
 the people for food. 
 
 But supposing that all the assertions about the 
 present season, and all the usual predictions respect- 
 ing the coming harvest, were true ; and that the price 
 were to fall greatly in consequence of the rotation 
 of the crops being disturbed by a greater breadth of 
 wheat being sown this year than was ever sown 
 before ; how would it benefit the farmer ? We 
 should have the same story of distress over again, 
 and see agriculturists as badly off as they were in 
 1836. This, indeed, is the regular operation of the 
 Corn Laws : they either' ruin the farmer or greatly 
 prejudice the public. Yet these are the Laws that 
 it is sought to identify with all the cherished insti- 
 tutions of the State ; and if anyone assails them he is 
 charged with designs against the Constitution itself. 
 But who is benefited by the Laws, if the farmer is 
 thus injured and deceived ? 
 
 It is usual to say in these discussions that by 
 making prices high particular soils are kept in cul- 
 tivation, and employment thereby secured to the 
 labourers ; that wages rise with the price of food, 
 and therefore the labourer is better off with high 
 prices because he can earn more money. This was 
 said deliberately last year. Will it be repeated ? I 
 trust not. I do not think it creditable to have urged 
 it at all : it certainly is not true. It is cruel to the 
 labourer who can have no doubt of the privations 
 
166 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 he endures from a higli price of food, misleading to 
 others who do not know that ; and, there is not the 
 least pretence for asserting that when provisions are 
 high the agricultural labourer gets high wages. The 
 contrary has always happened whenever such has been 
 the case. 
 
 In 1797, the great scarcity and high prices then 
 prevalent, so far from leading to high wages, gave rise 
 to a system of pauperizing independent labourers, 
 previously unknown ; and a heavy burden was thrown 
 upon the Rates for the express purpose of avoiding 
 precisely that which is said to be the advantageous 
 result of high prices : that is, a rise in wages pro- 
 portionate to the price of food. 
 
 Agam, in 1810, 1818, 1830, there were — as there 
 are at the present time — great complaints of the suiFer- 
 ings of the labourers ; and durmg each of these 
 periods the prices were — as they are now — high. But 
 it is a fact not less striking, in contradiction to what is 
 assumed, that whenever provisions have been low tke 
 labourers have been well off ; that there has been a 
 great demand for their labour ; and that their wages 
 have given them a greater command over the neces- 
 saries of life. This certainly is not astonishing to any 
 person who reflects for a moment on the subject, be- 
 cause it is clear that as everybody is more or less an 
 employer of labour, and that he is so according to his 
 means, in proportion as his means are greater or less 
 so will be his demand for labour ; and so, consequently, 
 will be the wages of the labourer, since it is the pro- 
 portion that their number bears to the demand for 
 them that must determine their condition. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 167 
 
 But if there can be any doubt as to the influence 
 of high prices on the condition of the people, it will 
 be well to view what really is the case at this moment. 
 I own that as far as my own inquiries have gone I 
 can learn nothing but that either the wages, though 
 raised, have not risen in proportion to the price of 
 food, or that, not having risen at aU, the labourers 
 have in many cases endured the greatest privations. 
 
 And here I will just read to the House a report 
 of some cases that occurred a short time ago. The 
 cases first appeared in a provincial paper. I inquired 
 into the truth of them, and I give them simply to 
 show how incautiously it is asserted here that the 
 agricultural labourers are not affected by the price 
 of food : — 
 
 In the southern part of this county 6s. a week is commonly 
 given to agricultural labourers. Within the last fortnight at the 
 petty sessions held at Salisbury, a farmer, living at Durnford, was 
 summoned by a labourer named Blake for refusing to pay him 
 6s. 6d. for a week's work. The complainant stated that he worked 
 on 'the Stem,' sometimes for one master, sometimes for another, 
 at 6s. 6d. a week, the rate agreed to by the farmers at a vestry 
 meeting. His employer had refused to pay him more than 6s., 
 which Blake would not accept, as it was not sufficient to main- 
 tain himself and wife. The master, in his defence, told the 
 magistrates that the farmers of Durnford had ' stemmed ' the 
 surplus labourers of that parish at 6s. per iveek, ivhich was as 
 much as they could afford to pay. The Bench expressed their 
 surprise — as well they might — at the practice pursued by the 
 farmers at Durnford towards the labourers, and ordered the 
 defendant to pay Blake the full amount of wages agreed on, 
 6s. Qd., and to remunerate him for his loss of time in seekmg 
 redress. This week we will take a different district, and name 
 Eushall, a parish standing comparatively in favourable circum- 
 stances, where the poor have advantages which in many other 
 places they do not enjoy. This parish is divided into three 
 large farms, the land is chiefly arable, and of excellent quality. 
 
168 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 producing on an average, certainly not less than eight sacks of 
 wheat, and ten sacks of barley per acre. On this fertile spot the 
 highest wages of able-bodied married labourers with families are 
 only 9s. per week (we except harvest work, for which, of course, 
 more is paid) ; those without children, and single men, although 
 equally able, aye, and willing too, to do a good day's work, are 
 put off with 5s., 6s., and 7s . a week. We do not understand why 
 this is ; it appears to be an act of injustice, and we should be 
 glad to know upon what principle the distinction is made :— If 
 an able man's services be worth 9s. a week, then is the single 
 man deprived of his due by being paid only 5s. ; but if an able 
 man's services be worth only 5s. or 6s. a week, then must the 
 difference between that and 9s. be considered as parish allowance 
 for the children ; it is high time this were properly understood, 
 for if the latter be the case, the real rate of wages is much lower 
 than it is represented to be. Of course, with such wages, desti- 
 tution and distress abound. Many families are miable to obtaia 
 more than one meal a day, and in many instances that one meal 
 consists oi potatoes and salt, without meat, and with only a small 
 quantity of the coarsest bread. Very few even of those who are 
 the best off get wheaten bread, but are obliged to have recourse 
 to a mixture of barley and wheat, the latter being of a very in- 
 ferior description — tail wheat. Meat is hardly ever eaten by any 
 of the labourers, they never buy any. 
 
 I think I have a right to refer to such cases when 
 I read addresses to the peasantry such as have been 
 made by a noble Duke ^ who takes a lead ia main- 
 taining the Corn Laws, asking them to believe that 
 while they maintain those Laws they will ever be 
 prosperous. Why, if it were for no other reason than 
 that they tend to make land dear, the Corn Laws 
 are pre)udicial to the labouring classes, who are always 
 better off when land is accessible to them ; nothing 
 tends more to their contentment and comfort than the 
 possession of land. 
 
 Another circumstance that I might mention to 
 
 ' The Duke of Buckingham. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 169 
 
 show that the people are now badly oflf and dis- 
 contented in the agricultural districts is that there 
 have been a greater number of agricultural labourers 
 who have sought to avail themselves of the pro- 
 vision for emigration this year than ever before. Why 
 should this be the case if the people were well paid 
 and well employed? The fact is, there is less means 
 for employing labour this year because the price of 
 food is so high ; and the poor are driven from the 
 farmhouse to the poorhouse, and thence to the State 
 to implore it to send them out of the country. And, 
 really, if we will not allow the food to come to them, 
 it is only merciful to send them where the food is 
 produced. But, in God's name, why are they to be 
 driven from their homes, when if provisions were as 
 low as they were in 1836, they would get plenty of 
 employment as, on the admission of the farmers them- 
 selves, they did then? 
 
 Who is it, after all, whose interests are benefited 
 by the Com Laws ? In the first place I say that none 
 can be permanently so at the expense of the rest of 
 the community ; but immediately and for the while, 
 there is no doubt whatever that the owner of the land 
 has an advantage in them. And it is an advantage 
 in this way : they enable a certain class of inferior 
 soils to be cultivated with wheat which unquestionably 
 could not yield any profit if the produce of better 
 foreign soils were brought into competition with it ; 
 and this class of soils being thus artificially enhanced 
 in value tends to raise the value and consequently 
 the rent of all other land ; and the owners of land, 
 
170 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 therefore, without reference to their effect upon other 
 classes of the community, have a certain interest in 
 the Laws. 
 
 It is well that the truth should be known and 
 avowed, and that it should be acknowledged that the 
 owners of land have a temporary advantage in the Com 
 Laws. For unquestionably they have, though the 
 farmers and the labourers cannot benefit by rent being 
 thus artificially raised. And it is to the land-owners 
 alone to whom we most turn for redress ; to them we 
 must appeal on the score of injury and injustice done 
 to the community at large, and of injury done to 
 themselves ultimately through the impaired fortunes 
 of those on whose custom they must depend for the 
 permanent value of their estates. 
 
 It is reasonable, therefore, to direct our whole 
 attention to this class, for I am certain, notwithstand- 
 ing the delusion of some of the farmers on the sub- 
 ject, that if some of the more distinguished of the 
 Iftnd-owners in both Houses of Parliament were to 
 rise in their places and express an opinion that the 
 Corn Laws ought to be changed, all alarm among 
 their tenants would at once be dissipated. 
 
 I am not, however, inclined to join in any whole- 
 sale denunciation of the land-owners of this country. 
 It would be unjust to do so ; because there are among 
 them men of great intelligence, high-minded men, 
 men of generous feeling : some are ready and anxious 
 to change these Laws knowing them to be prejudicial 
 to the country at large ; and others seeing their own 
 advantage in them wUl not nevertheless adhere to 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 17] 
 
 them at tlie expense of their country. Hence it is 
 right to discriminate between them ; but certainly it 
 is also fair to fix upon those who obstruct and oppose 
 all change of the Laws the full responsibility and all 
 the consequences of such a course. 
 
 And I say this the more confidently because it is 
 not in their power to show that the Laws rest upon 
 any ground of justice or of public good. The land- 
 lords in any other country but this might allege that 
 they were exclusively taxed, that they bore more of 
 the burdens of the State than any otlier class, and 
 were entitled to have a law that should give an 
 artificial value to their produce. In this country 
 they cannot allege it. Will they go into an inquiry? 
 Is there any particular burden they bear from which 
 other classes are exempt ? Can they say that they 
 are not exempt fi'om burdens that others have to 
 bear? They are not entitled to this Protection on 
 the ground of advantage to the community. It can- 
 not be shown that there is one burden borne by them 
 that other classes do not equally bear. What, there- 
 fore, is the ground for their exclusive Protection ? 
 What is the ground that they themselves take ? They 
 say : ' K you allow the produce of foreign countries to 
 come into competition with our own, you will throw 
 out of employ many of the labourers on our own 
 land.' What is the principle implied in this assertion, 
 supposing it to be true ? Are the interests of the 
 country to be sacrificed that certain lands shall not 
 forego a particular cultivation? We wish for the 
 benefit of the community to resort to soils more 
 
172 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 productive, whence we shall get food cheaper, and 
 the land-owner forbids us on the ground of Protec- 
 tion. What might the mechanic not say ? What 
 says the hand-loom weaver ? They might say, do 
 not introduce a machine that shall make labour 
 cheaper. They do say, tax machinery. The prin- 
 ciple is the same. There seems to be no difference in 
 the policy. What is the truth then? The proprietors 
 not being exclusively taxed, but, on the contrary, 
 being i-ather exempted from taxation, have no ground 
 in justice for claiming Protection whatever may be 
 their power for enforcing it. 
 
 Before I quit what may be called the agricultural 
 part of the question, I shall, perhaps, be allowed to 
 refer to another argument that in the course of this 
 discussion will probably be adduced in support of the 
 Com Laws : namely, that Ireland is an agricultural 
 country and that it is an advantage to Ireland that the 
 present Laws should be continued. I should be sorry 
 to let anything fall from me that could possibly give 
 offence to Ireland, we have done enough to offend 
 that country already ; but I must say that of all 
 pretences for supporting these Laws, Ireland seems 
 to me the most groundless and unreasonable : Ire- 
 land that of late years has been sending us less and 
 less wheat ; Ireland where the mass of the people 
 are too poor to consume wheat, where husbandry is 
 the worst in the kingdom, where the landlords have 
 a larger share of the produce for rent and spend it 
 more out of their own country than any other land- 
 lords in Europe ; Ireland, moreover, where agricul- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 173 
 
 ture would thrive better without than with the culti- 
 vation of wheat ; Ireland that would benefit more 
 perhaps than any other country from the introduction 
 of manufactures or from the prosperity of manufactures 
 here. For Ireland has always and instantly felt the 
 benefit of the prosperity of manufactures in England. 
 And what condition would she now be in, with her 
 new liability to maintain her poor, if English manu- 
 factures were to decline ? That is a question for 
 Irish landlords to consider. But in the Report of the 
 Committee on Agriculture to which I have referred, 
 there is positive evidence that where Irish agricul- 
 turists have prospered it has been attributable to 
 their abandoning the culture of wheat and applying 
 the soil to other purposes. How, then, are the real 
 interests of Ireland consulted by Laws that, in the 
 price they promise, offer peculiar temptation to the 
 cultivation of wheat ? If I thought the present 
 Corn Laws of advantage to Ireland that would have 
 great weight with me. But what is to be gathered 
 on this head from the avowed opinions of men who 
 have studied and sought to promote the interests of 
 that country ? I allude more particularly to the 
 opinions of ]\Ir. Sharman Crawford and the Member 
 for Dublin — gentlemen differing on many matters but 
 agreeing in condemning the Corn Laws as tending to 
 make land dear and to repress manufacturing enter- 
 prise in their country. I cannot believe under all 
 these circumstances that Ireland offers us any ground 
 for upholding the Corn Laws. 
 
 I think that I have said enough with regard to 
 
174 FREE TRADE SPEECHJES. 
 
 the wisdom of these Laws in their relation to agri- 
 culture, to show how far that interest can be said 
 to have thriven under the influence of Monopoly. I 
 must now turn to the great and general question 
 mvolving the prmciple that should be the test of 
 every law : its effects upon the community at large. 
 Hitherto I have examined the effect of the Corn Laws 
 on the class interest alone for which it was professed 
 that they were passed. But one of the things that 
 the public expect to learn from this discussion is the 
 general effect of the operation of these Laws ; they 
 want to know how far they are affected by the higher 
 or lower price of food in this country. And this 
 can be shown them. 
 
 It is indeed among the advantages of the agitation 
 of a great question of this kind, that it brings very 
 many intelligent minds to its consideration, and so 
 tends to elicit truth where doubt previously prevailed. 
 And here I am glad to be able to point to an admir- 
 able work entitled ' Influences of the Corn Laws,' 
 recently published by Mr. James Wilson ; for this 
 author appears to me to have made some very faithful 
 and accurate calculations respecting the effects of the 
 Corn Laws. He takes as the basis of his calculation 
 the amount in quantity and the rate at which the 
 people have been annually paying for food for tlie 
 last seven years. He adopts the general estimate as 
 to the quantity annually consumed which is sixteen 
 milUons of quarters ; and the average price of the 
 last seven years which has been about 525. a quarter. 
 From this it will be found that the annual cost of 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 175 
 
 wheat to the community is 41,600,000^. It follows, 
 therefore, that whatever is paid more or less than this 
 sum, is lost or gained to the community ; and hence it 
 can be proved what this has been of late years, and 
 what is the amount now lost to the community. Mr. 
 Wilson shows in one carefully prepared table what 
 has been the sum paid at home and abroad for wheat 
 durmg the years 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839. 
 For instance : — 
 
 Tears. 
 
 1834 
 1835 
 1836 
 1887 
 1838 
 1839 
 
 It thus appears that during the last three years we 
 have as a nation spent more in wheat grown at home 
 by 45,793,000^. than in the three preceding years ; 
 and paid more by 12,420,000^. during the first named 
 period for foreign wheat than during the latter. 
 The illustration, however, wUl be still more simple, 
 if we compare the two last years : namely, 1838 
 and 1839. In the beginning of the year 1838, we 
 find the price of wheat was at an average of 52s. a 
 quarter. In the autumn of the same year it suddenly 
 rose to 75.S. — being more than 20.s. a quarter higher. 
 Therefore, taking the annual con sumption at 16,000,000 
 quarters the country in September, 1838, was suddenly 
 called upon to pay 300,000/. a week more for food 
 than it paid in the six preceding months; and 450,000/. 
 
 Total Cost of Wheat. 
 
 £ 
 
 36,933,333 
 
 Cost of Foreign Wheat, 
 £ 
 101,750 
 
 31,400,000 
 
 34,654 
 
 38,800,000 
 
 51,177 
 
 44,666,000 
 
 499,480 
 
 51,666,000 
 
 4,594,014 
 
 50,533,000 
 
 7,515,800 
 
176 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 a week more than it paid in 1835. And this increased 
 sum was paid during the whole of the following year. 
 This, then, is a sum that was suddenly abstracted from 
 the capital and income that, under existing arrange- 
 ments, was finding useful and convenient employment 
 elsewhere ; and it must thus be considered as lost to 
 those departments of industry in which it was giving 
 employment. 
 
 It seems, moreover, that what invariably attends 
 a high price of food in this country is importation fi-om 
 abroad, the amount of which in late years has been 
 stated. But under our present relations with the corn- 
 growing countries, we are compelled to export Bullion 
 Currency to pay for grain. We have, therefore, on 
 these occasions a certain amount of the Currency of the 
 country invariably abstracted to make this payment. 
 And thus we have an additional abstraction from the 
 means usually devoted to employment at home : a very 
 important consideration in a commercial point of view 
 since the absence of so much bullion is of necessity 
 followed by a contraction of the Paper Currency. 
 Hence the public have to consider the Corn Laws 
 in connection with a twofold evU — high price and a 
 contracted Currency ; and thus doubly checking the 
 operations of capital and labour. 
 
 To prove the connection between the price of 
 food and the Currency in this country the same 
 author has collected in a tabular form the annual 
 amount paid for wheat, the amount of bullion and 
 the amount of deposits in the Bank of England, and 
 the amount paid for foreign wheat during a period of 
 
HOUSE OF COMiAIONS. 177 
 
 above twenty years. From tlii,s table tbere appears a 
 close correspondence between the different amounts of 
 bullion and tbe deposits in the Bank, and the dif- 
 ferent amounts paid for wheat at home and abroad : 
 the former declining as the latter increased. And 
 this with such regularity as to render it impossible 
 not to conclude that a necessary connection exists 
 between them. From 1817 until the present time, 
 as grain has been imported from abroad and prices 
 have been high, the deposits and the bullion have 
 declined. The diminution of the deposits would 
 result from the increased payments requii-ed for food, 
 which lessens the amount of surplus capital in the 
 country ; and the amount of it in the Bank of Eng- 
 land would indicate pretty much what surplus was 
 in the country generally. In support of which I 
 quote the opinion of a mercantile man : — 
 
 When money is everywhere abundant and prosperity general, 
 the resource of the Bank of England must be very great ; at 
 such times the surplus of every man throughout the country 
 finds its way to his banker ; a portion of the surplus of the 
 bankers throughout the country finds its way to their agents in 
 London for employment ; and the surplus of these agents, as 
 well as all the London bankers, finds its way to the coffers of the 
 Bank of England, as the most accredited place of safety ; and 
 thus constitutes an index, not of the wealth and capital of the 
 Bank of England, but of the extent of surplus capital possessed 
 at any given moment by the whole country. 
 
 It seems reasonable to expect that if great and 
 sudden demands for the national means were made, 
 they would be manifested in this way ; and the facts 
 to which I have referred seem to establish that they 
 are. Now we observe that from the end of 1838 
 
 VOL. I. N 
 
178 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 till October 1839 there appears to have been a 
 diminution from month to month of bullion and 
 deposits, and during the whole of that time we were 
 importing food from abroad. We know further how 
 bitterly the commercial classes complained during that 
 time of the contraction of the Currency. The great 
 importance of this circumstance to the public is that 
 they may know the truth respecting the sources of 
 those fluctuations in the value and amount of the 
 Currency which occasion such serious and alarming 
 embarrassment in this country ; and though I do not 
 stand here as the apologist of the Bank of England 
 (against which if judged only according to the rules 
 that it has laid down for itself, there is abundant 
 ground of complaint), it is well to show that what is 
 imputed entirely to its mismanagement must ui great 
 measure be referred to the operation of the Corn Laws. 
 
 And now after having proved that there has been 
 a contraction of the Currency, an increase in the price 
 of food, and a large sacrifice of the national means to 
 meet it, it is necessary to consider what has been the 
 efi^ect of these circumstances upon the commercial 
 interest of the country. 
 
 I will first allude to the Cotton Trade. The facts 
 that I am about to state will, I believe, prove 
 that whereas there has been a greater export of 
 manufactured goods, the consumption of manufac- 
 tures at home has been less. I quote them to show 
 that the whole trade of the country was worse m 
 the years in which the price of provisions was 
 high. I take the years 1838 and 1839. The quan- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 179 
 
 tity of cotton exported in 1838, was 269,000,000 
 lbs.; in 1839, it was 262,000,000 lbs. : being a de- 
 crease of 7,000,000 lbs. In 1838, the home consump- 
 tion of cotton was 155,000,000 lbs.; in 1839, it was 
 122,000,000 lbs. : being a decrease of 33,000,000 
 lbs. Of wool, the home consumption, in 1838, was 
 56,000,000 lbs.; in 1839, it was 53,000,000 lbs.: being 
 a decrease of 3,000,000 lbs. But the export of 
 woollen goods had increased. In 1838, the quantity 
 exported was 6,000,000 lbs.; in 1839, it was 6,600,000 
 lbs. Of flax, the home consumption, in. 1838, was 
 1,600,000 lbs.; in 1839, it was 1,200,000 lbs., and so 
 on with respect to many other articles which I will 
 not stay to enumerate. 
 
 It appears also that the articles that contributed 
 to these staple manufactures of the country had also 
 greatly fallen off in consumption. From the returns 
 that I have quoted the House will perceive that whilst 
 the goods entered for home consumption had materially 
 diminished in amount, the quantity of manufactured 
 goods exported had increased. Doubtless some per- 
 sons in the House will think that this proves the 
 country to have been prosperous. I advise such 
 persons to consult their manufacturing friends or 
 any competent authority connected with our Foreign 
 Trade, and to inquire whether the increase of ex- 
 ports was a sure sign of prosperity ; whether it was 
 not compatible with the manner in which business 
 is conducted in this country that the exports should 
 increase when the consumption at houie was declin- 
 ing — the manufacturers being driven by necessity 
 
 N 2 
 
180 FREE tRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to procure somewhere a sale for goods cast back, 
 as it "were, on their own hands ; whether it was 
 not usual for them in such circumstances to consign 
 these goods on their own account to houses abroad 
 to be disposed of; and whether this has not, from 
 distress, been done during the last year to a very- 
 great extent. 
 
 Indeed there is evidence of it in the complaiats 
 that come from different countries, of the sales of our 
 manufactures which we are forcing on their markets. 
 In a letter addressed to one of our most influential 
 journals, its correspondent abroad, speaking of the 
 extraordinary quantity of British goods brought into 
 foreign markets, says: ' I would wish to give a hint to 
 those British manufacturers who continue to send 
 over goods to be sold at forced sales at any price ; if 
 that practice be continiied the loss will be enormous.' 
 Mr. Biddle, who is well known in America, in a 
 letter addressed to this country last year, spoke of 
 the injurious extent to which British merchandise 
 was forced into the American markets. And I might 
 quote much more to show that goods are frequently 
 exported for want of the market at home for which 
 they have been produced, and which for some reason 
 has failed : in this case I ascribe the failure chiefly 
 to the heavy payments that have been required for 
 food. 
 
 Another proof that I might give of the depression 
 at home would be the diminished consumption of 
 certain articles on which revenue is collected, as 
 shown by the amount collected in the different 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 181 
 
 quarters ending in January 1839 and 1840. I will 
 take four articles of ordiaary consumption: — 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Hops in 1839 298,343 in the year ending 1840 280,079 
 
 Malt „ 5,211,798 ,, „ „ 4,845,948 
 
 Soap „ 1,047,545 „ „ „ 740,000 
 
 Spirits „ 6,451,792 „ „ „ 5,442,477 
 
 But I can fortify my opinion that there has 
 been a diminished power of consumption at home 
 owing to the influences that I have traced to the Corn 
 Laws, by the authority of a gentleman whose name 
 wUl, I am sure, be received by the House with great 
 respect : I mean Mr. Jones Loyd,^ who ia a pamphlet 
 recently published inquires into the causes of the 
 commercial distress of the last year in this country. 
 He places first in order: — 
 
 The succession of two bad harvests in a country afflicted with 
 laws which render such an occurrence peculiarly oppressive to 
 the community, and by a peculiar feHcity in mischief, contrive 
 to make monetary derangement, and consequently commercial 
 pressure, the inevitable accompaniment of the misfortune of the 
 seasons. The poison of impoHcy is thus thrown into the fiendish 
 cauldron of injustice, 
 
 For a charm of powerful trouble 
 Like a hell-broth to boil and bubble. 
 
 In referring to this gentleman I am not naming 
 a person likely to express himself rashly or incau- 
 tiously, or one who has no stake in the country, as 
 it is called ; but I am referring to one who is pro- 
 bably the possessor of more property than any of 
 those who will take part in the discussion this even- 
 
 ' The present Lord Overstone. 
 
182 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ing — property of every description, not only ia money 
 but also in land ; and whose judgment is held in high 
 esteem wherever he is known. 
 
 And now we will just consider what are the 
 consequences of this monetary derangement and com- 
 mercial pressure of which Mr. Loyd speaks ; for 
 there ought to be something to correspond to them 
 in the actual condition of some of our manufacturing 
 towns if these things are true. A trustworthy Report 
 from one of those districts that I have here will 
 enlighten the House upon the subject ; and I will 
 therefore read from it the result of an inquiry made at 
 Bolton a few weeks since : — 
 
 In the cotton mills alone about 95,000Z. less have been paid 
 during the last twelve months. Many of the mills have been 
 entirely stopped for all or part of the time, and with only two 
 exceptions all have worked short time for a considerable portion 
 of the past year. I have made a very careful calculation from 
 extensive personal mquiry, and assert most confidently that 
 altogether there must have been at least 130,000Z. less paid in 
 wages in the Bolton Union. Now, add this 180,000Z. less in 
 wages to the 195,000Z. more for food, and there is a total loss to 
 Bolton of 325,000Z. ! What are the consequences ? There are 
 now in Bolton 1,125 houses mitenanted, of which about fifty are 
 shops, some of them in the principal streets. Here is a loss to 
 the owners of lO.OOOZ. to 12,000Z. a year. The shopkeepers are 
 almost ruined by diminished returns and bad debts. There 
 were, a short time ago, three sales of the effects of shopkeepers 
 ill one day. Distraints for cottage rents occur daily. The 
 arrears of cottage rents, and the debts to shopkeepers, are incal- 
 culable, but they must amount to many thousand pomads. The 
 pawnbrokers' shops are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and 
 even bedding of the destitute poor. Fever is also prevalent. Mr. 
 E. S. Kay, one of the medical ofScers of the union, and a young 
 practitioner of great promise, lately took the infection of malignant 
 typhus fever, and last week fell a victim to his harassing duties.. 
 
HOUSE or COMMONS. 183 
 
 He bad latterly worked almost day and night. A short time ago 
 590 persons were relieved by the Poor Law guardians in one 
 day, in amounts varyuig from six to eighteen pence per bead 
 per week. Li many oases two or three families are crowded 
 into one house. In one case, seventeen persons were found in a 
 dwelling about five yards square. In another, eight persons, two 
 pair of looms, and two beds, m a cellar six feet under ground, 
 and measuring four yards by five. There are scores of families 
 with little or no bedding, having literally eaten it, i.e. pawned 
 or sold it for food ! The out-door relief to the poor is three times 
 greater in amount than on the average of the three years ending 
 1838. South of Bolton, four miles, a large spuming establish- 
 ment, giving employment to 800, and subsistence to 1,300 per- 
 sons, has been entirely stopped for nine months. The proprietor 
 has upwards of 100 cottages empty, or pajring no rent, and, 
 although possessed of immense capital, finds himself unable to 
 continue working his mills to advantage. Bnteruig Bolton from 
 Manchester, another mill, requiring 180 hands, has been entirely 
 standing for eighteen months. In the centre of the town, another, 
 250 hands, stopped several weeks. North of Bolton, one mile, a 
 spuming, manufacturing, and bleaching establishment, on which 
 1,200 persons were dependent for subsistence, has been entirely 
 standing for four months. Several machine makers and engi- 
 neers are now employing one or two hundred hands less than 
 usual, at wages varying from 15s. to 40s. a week. A public sub- 
 scription, amounting to nearly two thousand pounds, has just 
 been raised to mitigate, in some degree, the suffermgs of the des- 
 titute poor ; in fact, to deal out a scanty pittance, just sufficient 
 to keep them from actual starvation, to a body of workmen who 
 possess, perhaps, greater skUl and industry than any popula- 
 tion of similar numbers on the face of the globe, but who are 
 forbid, by the inhuman policy of our land-owners, to exchange 
 the produce of their labour for food ui the open market of the 
 world ! 
 
 And that really was the cause of their distress. 
 And this melancholy state of things is unfortunately 
 by no means confined to the Cotton Districts, as I 
 myself know well from information that I have pro- 
 cured from the place that I represent. Is it not 
 
184 PREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 strictly in point, I would ask, to bring these matters 
 before the House? I am not one who would advise 
 the Legislature to interfere simply because of the 
 existence of distress ; but when great evil and great 
 distress can be traced to the law, then I think that it 
 is the duty as it is in the power of the Legislature to 
 interfere. I believe that in this case it is in the power 
 of the House to give instant relief ; I believe that it 
 is possible to give permanent rehef. The people are 
 now suffering from the high price of provisions ; and 
 they are suffering for want of commerce with those 
 countries where the food is grown cheap. The ware- 
 houses here are full of foreign grain ; and the coun- 
 tries where it is grown are ready to negotiate with us 
 for a regular interchange of products. But never- 
 theless the people are starving and we forbid them 
 to touch the cheap and abundant food within their 
 reach. The people want employment and we refuse 
 to allow them to work for corn-growing customers 
 and employers. Our manufactures are stopped because 
 payments from abroad are not made for goods already 
 supplied, owing to the scarcity of money. Abroad 
 they offer us flour in payment for our manufactures, 
 and our manufacturers are willing to take it and 
 would at once be willing to execute fresh orders upon 
 receiving it ; but the law forbids the people to touch 
 it without payment of the duty, and thus stops the 
 payment that would be readily made by the merchants 
 in America to the manufacturers of this country. 
 This is no mere opmion, it is the fact. America owes 
 a large debt to our merchants in this country ; be- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 185 
 
 cause of its own monetary embarrassments it has no 
 means of paying this debt, but large quantities of 
 flour have been sent to this country on American 
 account ; could these quantities of flour be admitted 
 not only would the debt be paid and relief thereby 
 be given to our manufactures, but the manufacturers 
 would be ready to execute fresh orders and thus give 
 employment to our people who are starving for want 
 of it. 
 
 We are, moreover, now left without a pretence for 
 saying that the States from which we might import 
 corn have not always been and are not now ready to 
 admit our manufactures on terms of reciprocity. I 
 do not understand the denial of it if it proceeds from 
 any authority. Is it intended to imply that the late 
 President of the Board of Trade stated what was false 
 when he said that besides the ofiicial communications 
 that he read to the House, he had perused many other 
 letters from foreign Ministers all showing willingness 
 on the part of the several countries they represented 
 to reduce their tariff's on our applying the same prin- 
 ciple to their products? And what does the able 
 Report of Dr. Bowring but distinctly confirm the 
 impression made by the official documents read by 
 Mr. Thomson, and prove even at this hour the 
 readiness of those countries to trade with us? I 
 believe what is contained in Dr. Bowring's Report, 
 for it corresponds exactly with the information that 
 I procured myself when in those countries, and I have 
 since heard no reason to question its correctness. 
 
 Already the effects of our system in compelling 
 
186 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 those States to employ their population in manufac- 
 ture may be seen in the following official btatement 
 taken from the first and last year of the tables of the 
 Board of Trade relatmg to our trade with the corn- 
 growing countries : — 
 
 MANUPACTUEED GOODS EXPOETBD TO RUSSIA, GERMANY, 
 AND PRUSSIA, IN 1832 AND 1838. 
 
 Cotton Manufactures 
 
 Hosiery 
 
 Linen Manufactures 
 
 Silk . 
 
 Woollen 
 
 1882. 1838. 
 
 £ i, 
 
 1,273,355 946,483 
 
 359,157 197,615 
 
 6,429 25,111 
 
 20,888 17,629 
 
 952,450 815,785 
 
 2,612,279 2,002,573 
 
 Deficiency, notwithstanding 
 a great increase of popu- 
 lation 609,706 
 
 To enable these countries to employ their population in manu- 
 facturing clothing, to make up the deficiency of their imports, 
 the following statement, from the same source, shows the yarns 
 exported to them in the same years :— 
 
 
 1832. 
 
 1838. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Cotton Twist and Yarn 
 
 2,935,775 
 
 8,502,186 
 
 Linen Yarns 
 
 65 
 
 29,871 
 
 Woollen .... 
 
 137,082 
 
 229,572 
 
 
 3,072,922 
 
 3,761,629 
 
 Increase of Material to work 
 
 
 
 into cloth 
 
 688,707 
 
 
 But as it is needful, in order that these comitries shall suc- 
 cessfully rival England at home and in neutral markets, that 
 they shall have our coals, iron, and steel, and more especially 
 our machinery and millwork ; the following statement, from the 
 
HOUSE OF COMiMONS. 
 
 187 
 
 same source, shows the progress of our exports of these materials 
 in the same years to these countries : — 
 
 
 1832. 
 
 1838. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Coals . 
 
 27,790 
 
 56,850 increase 100 per cent 
 
 Iron and Steel . 
 
 75,295 
 
 190,222 „ 250 
 
 Machinery and 
 
 
 
 Millwork 
 
 7,863 
 
 97,479 „ 1,250 
 
 Total 
 
 110,948 344,051 average 300 
 
 The result is a reduction in the export of manufactured goods, 
 which would employ our labour ; an increase of yarn to employ 
 their own labour ; and an increase of machinery of 1,250 per 
 cent., to render them perfectly independent of us in their own 
 countries, and to rival us in neutral countries. 
 
 But it is not only with the German State that it is 
 important for us to negotiate at this moment ; it is 
 also the moment yet left to us to engage in fresh 
 treaties with the United States and Brazil. And here 
 I must express a hope that the President of the Board 
 of Trade will tell us exactly the truth on this matter ; 
 and that he will tell us whether the general impres- 
 sion is correct that the present tariff of the United 
 States will cease in 1842, that about the same time 
 our present treaty with Brazil will expire, and that our 
 future relations with those countries will very much 
 depend upon the terms that we may be enabled to 
 offer them. I trust that the people will be under no 
 delusion on the subject, and that if we are to continue 
 these fetters on our commerce it will at least be done 
 dehberately and with our eyes open. The future 
 well-being of this country must depend upon the 
 extension of our commerce ; there is no other mode 
 
188 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 of providing for our population or averting the de- 
 cline of the nation. The foolish and impolitic fetters 
 with which we restrict it are now pressing upon the 
 vitals of the people ; and their cry for relief is to be 
 heard in the Motion before the House. 
 
 There are some who think that our Foreign Trade 
 has been carried too far, and that we should have been 
 better without it. This may or may not be true ; 
 but in any case the complaint comes too late ; our 
 Foreign Trade is now essential to our existence, and 
 we cannot lessen it or destroy it without jeoparding 
 our whole financial and commercial system. We must 
 look to it for the maintenance of our Credit and the col- 
 lection of our Revenue. And most certainly this is 
 not the moment to weaken the sources of our Revenue: 
 when our expenditure has increased and is increasing 
 by the price that we pay for our sustenance and by 
 the steps that we are takmg to subdue our colonies, I 
 cannot, indeed, see how the deficiency in the Revenue 
 is to be supplied. The great sources of our Revenue 
 are found in the capacity of the people to consume 
 the articles that are taxed. I fail to see how it is 
 possible to expect that any fresh tax upon the daUy 
 consumption of the people can be levied. For while 
 the price of provisions is enhanced by the Corn Laws 
 and the prospects of Trade remain as they are, how 
 can it be supposed that if a fresh tax were imposed 
 some other branch of the Revenue would not fall off? 
 
 The only resource that in wisdom or justice I can 
 think it would be possible to have recourse to would 
 be a property tax. In the year 1830 the country was 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 189 
 
 tending to the condition in which we now find it. 
 The price of food was high and the taxation was 
 grievously felt by the productive classes. Mr. Hus- 
 kisson then in a most able speech (the last that he 
 made in this place) on the state of the nation drew the 
 attention of the House to the sources of our Revenue, 
 and to the difiiculties that would exist in collecting 
 the same amount of revenue if trade declined and 
 the productive classes remained depressed ; and he 
 pointed to the imposition of a tax upon property as 
 our only alternative. These were his words : — 
 
 The more general considerations to which I now claim the 
 attention of the House are these. First, that no other country 
 in Europe has so large a proportion of its taxation bearing 
 directly upon the incomes of labour and productive capital. 
 Secondly, that in no other oomitry of the same extent — I thmk I 
 might say in none of iive times the extent of this kingdom — is 
 there so large a mass of mcome belonging to those classes who 
 do not directly employ it in briaging forth the produce of labour. 
 Thu'dly, that no other country has so large a proportion of its 
 taxation mortgaged (in proportion to the amount of that mort- 
 gage are we interested in any measure which, without injustice 
 to the mortgagee, would tend to lessen the absolute burden of the 
 mortgage). Fourthly, that from no other country in the world 
 does so large a proportion of the class not engaged in production 
 (including many of the wealthy) spend their incomes in foreign 
 parts. I know I may be told that by taxing that income you 
 run the risk of driving them to withdraw their capital altogether. 
 My answer is. First, that nmety-nine out of every hmidred of 
 these absentees have no such command over the source of their 
 income. Secondly, that the danger is now of another and more 
 alarming description — that of the productive capitals of this 
 country being transferred to other countries, where they would 
 be secure of a more profitable return. The rehef of industry is 
 the remedy agamst that danger. 
 
 I believe that the people will now turn their 
 
190 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 attention to this same mode of obtaining relief ; and 
 certainly I doubt if any new tax but that on property 
 will be submitted to. 
 
 I am afraid that I have exhausted the patience of 
 the House by so far detailing the mischievous results 
 of the Corn Laws, and I Avill proceed no further ; but 
 I cannot conclude without exhorting those who have 
 hitherto opposed any change, to pause well before they 
 pronounce their decision again upon this question. I 
 ask them whether they perceive anything in the appear- 
 ance of circumstances around them to encourage the 
 belief that the people will adopt the views they 
 have hitherto expressed? Do they think that any 
 change of opinion has occurred in the public mind 
 since the last Session? Do they not, on the con- 
 trary, know that great numbers have come forth and 
 declared their opposition to the existing Corn Laws 
 who were silent before? Are there not many classes 
 who have never spoken before, now eager upon the 
 subject? I draw the attention of the House to the 
 fact that some of the most cautious and conservative 
 persons in the community, men who were supposed 
 to preside over the monetary system of the country 
 and who were most averse to any change, have come 
 forward and declared their opinion that these Laws 
 are extremely injurious to all the great interests with 
 which they are connected. Have not a greater number 
 of the working classes now pronounced their opinion 
 upon this subject than ever did before? I want, 
 therefore, to know what it is that is expected to 
 result from the rejection of this Motion. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 191 
 
 The Hon. Member for Rutland has declared his 
 determination to oppose it ; and I certainly admire 
 the bold injustice of the Hon. Gentleman more than 
 the insidious proceeding of the Hon. Member for Cam- 
 bridge, who has proposed an amendment and left the 
 real mischief of the Laws untouched. What do these 
 gentlemen expect to gala by such a course? Do they 
 expect that aU those who have come forward and 
 devoted their attention to the subject, who have sacri- 
 ficed their property in the cause, and who have 
 pledged themselves for the future to agitate this ques- 
 tion until it is brought to a satisfactory conclusion 
 [Opposition cheers]— yes, I think it is a strong test 
 of the earnestness of men when they devote their 
 money to promote an object — do Hon. Gentlemen 
 who oppose my Motion expect that by its rejec- 
 tion all those persons of whom I have spoken wUl 
 go home and admit themselves to be in error? Do 
 they expect that those persons will say : ' We cer- 
 tainly did think we were right, but we have found 
 after discussion that we are wrong ; that all those 
 who have agitated the question are in error ; and that 
 the Corn Laws are a gain and a blessing to us. Let 
 us forget oiir folly, and never revert to the matter ' ? 
 Is it reasonable to suppose that the great mass of 
 the people will altogether reverse their language upon 
 this subject, and adopt that quiescent and convenient 
 course, if this Motion is rejected? If Hon. Gentlemen 
 do not expect this what is it that they conceive will be 
 the consequence of its rej ection ? Why, the people will 
 return to their homes in the conviction that they are 
 
192 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 right, and at the same time satisfied that the House of 
 Commons wUl not do them justice. And what pros- 
 pect does this present? Will it decide the question? 
 If there is difficulty now in making arrangements in 
 the settlement of property, will the mere rejection of 
 this Motion facilitate the views of those who reject it? 
 Will it allay the anxiety of the public mind on the 
 subject? What is there to induce the people to admit 
 that they have been wrong? They do not doubt 
 themselves that they are cruelly injured by the Corn 
 Laws. What eminent authority, what person of any 
 kind has lately appeared to shake them in this con- 
 viction ? And yet, what year has passed that some 
 fresh person whose interest or intelligence entitle him 
 to credit has not appeared to denounce the Laws? 
 On all other great questions men of ability advocating 
 opinions in favour of the proposition advanced as well 
 as in opposition to it have appeared ; but with respect 
 to this particular question there is hardly a single 
 man of eminence and intelligence who has under- 
 taken to write in support of the present Laws. 
 [Ironical cheers fi-om the Opposition.] If any able 
 publication has appeared in favour of the views of the 
 Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am unaware of the fact, 
 and I should certainly feel great pleasure at having 
 an opportunity of perusing it. 
 
 But while there is comparative silence observed 
 by the advocates of the existing system, men of the 
 greatest talent and most extensive information are 
 coming forth daily with publications of their opinions 
 against it. What, then, can Hon. Gentlemen expect 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 193 
 
 to result from their resistance to any change? I pray 
 the House to pause before it comes to a decision to 
 resist all inquiry. I have abstained from stating my 
 o"wnvie\YS of what, consistent with justice and policy, 
 should be substituted for the present Corn Laws. 1 
 have been satisfied with pointing out the evils that 
 result from these Laws. And consequently there 
 is no pretext for resisting the Motion on the score 
 of the known opinions of the mover. 
 
 But supposing that the House should now resist all 
 inquiry, how long will those who vote against it abide 
 by then' vote? Let them reflect how soon it may be 
 that they will be called upon to vote in the directly 
 opposite way. And whether such conduct will reflect 
 credit either upon the House as a body, or themselves 
 individually. For this reason if for no other I ask the 
 House to pause before it opposes aU change. It would 
 be of no use to say that because I proposed this Ques- 
 tion the House would not assent to it ; or that because 
 I wished to see the Corn Laws totally repealed those 
 who had the power to resist all change, those who had 
 the power to determine the precise amount of change 
 would not consider the subject. The people would 
 not be deluded by such distinctions and pretences as 
 these. The Motion is now made by one who has a 
 perfect right to make it ; and those who vote against 
 it will be very justly considered the friends and advo- 
 cates of the Corn Laws. 
 
 And let the House bear well in mind who they are 
 that are aiTayed against them. This is no mere dis- 
 pute between land-owners and manufacturers. Such 
 
 VOL. I. o 
 
194 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 an assertion is the weak invention of the enemy 
 and uttered for the purpose of throwing discredit 
 on the subject. No ! The Question before the 
 House is, above any other that could be named, one 
 in which the great majority of the community are 
 interested one way, and a comparatively small section 
 of it deem themselves interested the other way : the 
 advantage in it enjoyed by the minority is due to 
 their position in the Legislature where their power 
 greatly prevails. But is it wise to rely solely on this 
 power? As far as I have been able to collect the 
 opinions of that great and intelligent portion of the 
 population termed the working class, they rest their 
 claims to the Suffrage chiefly and with emphatic 
 distinctness on these grounds : that their interests 
 and those of the community at large are not duly 
 represented in the House of Commons ; that they 
 are bound by laws enacted and maintained by those 
 who have no fellow-feeling with them ; and that the 
 general conduct of the Legislature is theu' strong 
 argument for widening and altering the character of 
 the Constituency. And as far as I can collect the 
 views of the many thousands of this class who have 
 petitioned for the repeal of the Corn Laws, they have 
 done so as a sort of test of the character and consti- 
 tution of the House to which they may point hereafter 
 as a ground for the assertion of their claims. 
 
 But do the working classes stand alone? Have 
 not other classes attached themselves to them? Are 
 not the classes immediately above them acting cor- 
 dially with them upon this occasion ? The working 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 195 
 
 classes certainly speak with confidence of the House 
 not doing them justice in this matter ; but for the 
 moment they consent to act with the middle classes, 
 whose language to those below them generally is : 
 ' Act with us, petition the House respectfully, pray 
 for the redress of your grievances patiently, do not 
 beheve that Parliament will reject yoiir prayer and 
 refuse you justice, we will join you.' And they have 
 petitioned patiently ; but it is well known that every 
 working man who has signed the petitions this year 
 has declared that if they prove abortive they are the 
 last that he will sign for the repeal of the Corn Laws : 
 the next will be for the reform of the House of Com- 
 mons itself. 
 
 There is now upon the question of the Corn Laws 
 perfect union between the middle and the working 
 classes. Do Hon. Members believe that under common 
 disappointment there would not be union as firm and 
 cordial between them upon the other, the ultimate 
 question that would then be raised ? If this Motion 
 is rejected, I believe that three years will not elapse 
 before such an alliance will be formed for the purpose 
 of a further reform in the constitution of this House. 
 The middle classes experience the mischief of these 
 Laws, and they call for their repeal. The working 
 classes suffer from them equally — I believe in a much 
 greater degree ; but they say that it is useless to call 
 upon this House to repeal them ; and they tell the 
 middle class that it is for this reason that they want 
 the Franchise. They do not call for change for the 
 sake of change, but because no advance will be made 
 
 2 
 
196 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 in the House on these questions of national interest 
 untU they can throw their weight into the pohtical 
 scale. Does the House suppose for one moment that 
 it is able to change an opinion thus deliberately- 
 formed and strongly maintained, by the rude rejection 
 of the present Motion ? 
 
 A few months ago I attended a meetiag of the 
 working classes at Manchester, when I witnessed the 
 most gratifying spectacle of upwards of 5,000 work- 
 ing men who had just quitted their daily avocations, 
 assembled together at dinner to express their opinions 
 upon this vital question. A more orderly, respectful, 
 or attentive meeting, and one where those decent 
 observances requisite in public assemblies were more 
 regarded, I never witnessed. Nothing could have 
 been more striking in contrast with the conduct of 
 many other meetings composed of persons who are 
 accustomed to discredit and disparage the people, than 
 the decorous deportment of that vast assemblage. I do 
 not doubt that a similar feeling and conduct would 
 be displayed throughout this kingdom wherever the 
 working people might assemble. 
 
 Once more, then, let me ask. What does the House 
 think would be the effect of the rejection of this Motion 
 on these men or any others in then" circumstances 
 equally endowed with qualities entitlmg them to 
 respect? Is it to be supposed that they would 
 tamely submit to the injury and affront that you 
 would offer them by refusing an inquiry mto the 
 working of the Corn Laws ? Would they believe that 
 they were in error, because those who are interested 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 197 
 
 in the Laws asserted them to be? Let the majority 
 of the House make it a matter of calculation with them- 
 selves and ask what they will gain by persisting in the 
 maintenance of the Laws as they are, and incurring all 
 the odium that attaches to such a course ? Whatever 
 its opinion really is the House should look at this 
 question practically. Granted that the repeal of the 
 Corn Laws is an evil, is it not an inevitable one ? The 
 people believe that the Laws are an intolerable evil ; 
 does the House, in anything it says, prove to them 
 that they are not? And do they not hear, and have 
 they not heard, from some of the most distinguished 
 men in the land that they are right in their belief — that 
 the Corn Laws are unjust and unwise and that they 
 rightly refer their sufferings to them? 
 
 Still I fear that these considerations are not weigrh- 
 ing with the majority of this assembly, and that this 
 Motion is to be rejected. If it is I shall then only 
 say that the responsibility of all the consequences 
 that follow from such a course must be fixed upon 
 the majority. Whatever happens, whatever disturb- 
 ance follows, whatever evils occur, be they social or 
 pohtical or of a physical kind, if they result from these 
 Laws the whole blame and responsibility must attach 
 to those persons individually and collectively who 
 give their vote this evening agamst my Motion. 
 
 The people are now enduring great physical 
 suffering, which on weighty professional authority 
 I ascribe to the miserable food to which the Corn 
 Laws condemn them ; discontent, springing from a 
 sense of injustice inflicted on them by this House, 
 
198 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 pervades tlie working classes throughout the king- 
 dom ; their attention once reluctantly is now habitu- 
 ally devoted to the consideration of political subjects ; 
 and their feelings, from these several circumstances, 
 are becoming hourly heightened by the agitation of 
 the question of the Corn Laws. The House has at 
 the present moment an opportunity of allaying the 
 excitement by relieving the people from the pressure 
 that is bearing them down. Will they throw away the 
 opportunity? Let them! and they will be indebted 
 to fortune alone should they be enabled to regain it. 
 
 I will no longer obtrude upon the attention of the 
 House. If I have expressed myself with too much 
 warmth I regret it. If I have done so, it is because 
 of a very strong conviction on my part that I am 
 right on this subject and from a grave apprehension 
 that the House may be guilty of the egregious error of 
 resisting the Motion. I now move : That the House 
 resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House 
 to take into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, 
 regulating the importation of foreign grain. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 199 
 
 VI. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 26, 1840. 
 
 Determined not to be thwarted by the expedient resorted to by the 
 upholders of the Corn Laws on April 1, Mr. Villiers renewed his Motion on 
 May 26, after he had presented petitions with a quarter of a million signa- 
 tures attached to them, in addition to those signed by a million and a 
 quarter presented on the occasion of his previous Motion. The moment he 
 began to speak a tirm determination not to give him a fair hearing was 
 shown by the House. A most disgraceful scene of uproar ensued : the 
 Speaker's orders were totally disregarded, and it was not until the dinner 
 hour had reduced the House to about a hundred Members that Mr. Vil- 
 liers was allowed to proceed without interruption. As soon, however, as 
 the House began to refill, the noise and confusion recommenced. Mr. 
 Strutt could scarcely make himself heard. Mr. Warburton was interrupted 
 by loud cries of ' Divide,' and when Mr. Mark Philips, representing the 
 most important manufacturing community in the kingdom, rose, the 
 clamour was so great that it was found impossible to carry on the debate. 
 A Division was taken, and the numbers were 300 against, to 177 for the 
 Motion. 
 
 The House is, I believe, fully aware that it is in 
 consequence of the extraordinary course which it 
 thought proper to adopt with regard to my last 
 Motion on the Corn Laws that it has now become my 
 duty again to propose the subject for its considera- 
 tion. I trust that Hon. Members feel that whilst 
 that course was unsatisfactory to the public, offensive 
 to those interested in the discussion, and almost cruel 
 to the much larger number who refer their recent 
 sufferings to the operation of these Laws, it 1' ^s also 
 been unattended by any advantage or convenience to 
 this House, 
 
200 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 I, for one, am not sorry to see that when the 
 House shrinks from a fair decision or a full dis- 
 cussion on a question vitally important to the people 
 at large it derives no advantage from its wrong-doing. 
 
 I know that it may be said that the imme- 
 diate occasion of the course to which I have re- 
 ferred was the Motion of the Honourable Member 
 for Bridport. [Cries of ' Hear, hear ! ' from the 
 Opposition benches.] But I ask when was it that 
 my Hon. Friend moved the adjournment of the 
 House ? Why, when this House had decided that 
 the debate should not be adjourned at all, which it 
 did after six hours out of the seven hours during 
 which the debate had lasted, had been occupied by 
 persons opposed to the Motion ; when the last speaker 
 only closed his address at past one in the morning, 
 after the Members for the most important and most 
 distressed of the manufacturing districts had been 
 referred to and the interests of their constituents 
 misstated, and after thirty or forty Members had left 
 the House on the faith that the debate would be 
 adjourned — then it was that the House insisted on 
 dividing and that my Hon. Friend thought that it 
 would be more expedient to resume the discussion at a 
 future time when a fair decision might be taken upon it. 
 
 The majority, therefore, have to thank themselves 
 for any disadvantage accruing to their cause by an 
 adjourned discussion ; for I do not suppose that it 
 can be very politic in those who desire to maintain 
 these Laws to invite public attention to them more 
 than is possible. And if I am to judge of the 
 
HOUSE or COMMONS. 201 
 
 scornful manner in which the Member for East 
 Somerset referred to the mode in which I had in- 
 troduced this subject, when, as the House remembers, 
 he complained with so much impatience that gentle- 
 men like himself should be kept from their avocations 
 in the country to listen to such dull treatises on the 
 Corn Laws — I say that takmg that gentleman to 
 represent the taste and temper of the House, I do not 
 suppose that at this season, when there is even more 
 to divert the mind of the House, it can be more 
 agreeable to hear another essay on what affects the 
 poverty and privations of the hiimbler classes. 
 
 And I hear, again, that I have but ill chosen the 
 moment for renewing the discussion. I should like 
 to know when it would be agreeable to a majority 
 of this House to discuss the matter. The avocation 
 of the Member for East Somerset was, as I under- 
 stood him, to attend some local Bench of Justice that 
 was used to profit by his learning. This time I am 
 told that it is the season when gentlemen quit the 
 Bench and enter another department of service, and 
 tenants, converted into troops, pass in review before 
 their lords. And the grievance now is that gentle- 
 men are again brought to London from the country 
 to hsten to another dull discussion. As far as I am 
 concerned, I am sorry to disturb their manoeuvres, 
 feeling sure that they are more innocent away than 
 in this House ; for it will not be in my day that I 
 shall satisfy them that respect for the House would 
 be better insured by a patient consideration here 
 of Laws proved to be bad than by a display of 
 
202 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 incompetence f©r the Bencli or inefficiency for the 
 Field elsewhere. 
 
 However, whether it be thought a trick or a 
 triumph to have disposed of the question before, I 
 shall not complain of the circumstance siace it has 
 enabled us to discuss it again ; and I have seen too 
 much of the advantage of discussion on this sub- 
 ject not to value very highly its continuance. Dis- 
 cussion has, in truth, done nearly all that can be 
 expected of it : it has disclosed the truth and ex- 
 posed what is untrue ia the matter. And not- 
 withstanding the fallacy and vague generality with 
 which it has been attempted to perplex it, discussion 
 has certainly cleared the question of confusion, and 
 brought it back to the point from which it was at first 
 advanced : namely, what right or reason there is for 
 one class of proprietors to impose a heavy burden 
 on the rest of the community for the purpose of 
 swelling their own fortunes. This is the question 
 the people ask ; this is the question that has not 
 been answered ; but it is a question that must be 
 answered if the public are not to be left m the 
 belief that the Corn Laws rest upon nothing but the 
 rude right of power — a reckless, ruinous, heartless 
 enactment, maintained for the interest of a few, 
 though really injurious to all. Such is the opinion 
 of the great body of the people so far as pubhc 
 sentiment can be collected ; and it has been elicited 
 by that opinion being denied. It would be well for 
 the House to reflect upon the progress of opinion 
 on this matter, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 203 
 
 In 1837 either despair of justice or dread of con- 
 flict liad produced what is called apathy on the sub- 
 ject of the Corn Laws ; few petitions were presented 
 to this House relating to it ; and a county Member 
 thought it decent and safer, when I rose to speak 
 upon it, to attempt to count the House out. In 1838 I 
 brought the subject forward ; and then it was asserted 
 that the manufacturers were indifferent to it ; that 
 they were in no way injured by the Corn Laws, but 
 rather that they partook of the benefit that it was 
 asserted others derived fi-om them. Mark the result 
 of so treating the subject. 
 
 Before the Session of 1839 there was hardly a 
 Chamber of Commerce that had not petitioned this 
 House, and hardly a manufacturing town that had 
 not appointed its delegate to proceed to London and 
 respectfully ask the House to listen to the facts that 
 they were ready to detail in answer to the strange 
 misapprehension of their interests which seemed to 
 prevail in it. 
 
 How did you deal with their petitions ? On 
 what ground did you dismiss their prayer to be 
 heard in the face of the country and the world at 
 this Bar ? You thought it convenient to assume 
 that what they said was true ; but you denied the 
 poHcy of changing the Laws, which you declared 
 rested upon a general regard to the interests of the 
 community. You said that the working classes were 
 not of the same mind with the petitioners, and that 
 it was a mere selfish manufacturing question. Now, 
 what followed from this assertion ? Why, that there 
 
204 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 was scarcely a town of any note in Great Britain 
 where there was not some meeting assembled or 
 some petition signed by the working people against 
 the Corn Laws as if for the purpose of recording, at 
 least, their opinion respecting them ; and although 
 they may never again petition the House on the 
 subject (many have declared that they wUl not), they 
 have by the sentiments expressed in their petitions 
 left no one in doubt as to their views of the justice, 
 humanity, or pohcy of such laws. 
 
 And how stands the question now ? What has 
 been the result of all the agitation and discussion 
 that it has everywhere excited ? No less than this : 
 that all the pretences on which it has been sought to 
 defend the Corn Laws have been thoroughly sifted 
 and examined ; and that at the present moment 
 there is hardly a mechanic or a schoolboy in any 
 town who is not familiar with the fallacies that have 
 been used for the occasion, and the refutation of them. 
 I have listened to many debates on this subject ; I 
 have looked through those that have taken place 
 in Parliament at former times ; and I find that 
 they all resolve themselves into some three or four 
 phrases which, though they may be varied in ex- 
 pression, are simply repetition of the same things. I 
 shall now merely refer to them with the view of 
 noting them to the public and the hope of preventing 
 their repetition this evening. 
 
 First, there is the notion that the high price of 
 food occasions a high rate of wages, and that the 
 people have therefore an interest in the continuance 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 205 
 
 of the Corn Laws. Next, that by the landlord's 
 receiving a higher price for his land, he becomes a 
 better customer to the manvifacturer. Then, that it 
 is part of the system of this country that when an 
 interest cannot maintain itself it should be main- 
 taiaed, and that the Corn Laws are the mode of 
 aifording that support to the land-owner by law. 
 And lastly, that it is unwise for a country to depend 
 upon other countries for food. 
 
 If any person will examine the arguments urged 
 for the Corn Laws he wiU find them comprehended ui 
 one or other of these sentences. I am very glad 
 that such things are put forward, for it has forced 
 upon the public the discussion of matters deeply 
 interesting to the middle and working classes from 
 which their attention is usually diverted by the 
 absorbing interest of individual affairs. It has, more- 
 over, led to a particular consideration of the circum- 
 stances that influence the condition of the working 
 class in this country ; and it has fairly brought all 
 the fallacies advanced on the subject to the test of 
 common sense and experience. 
 
 Now, what may be said with truth to have resulted 
 from the inquiry into the connection between the 
 high price of food and the condition of the labouring 
 class ? Why, the unpleasant disclosure that a greater 
 mockery of their misery could scarcely have been de- 
 vised or uttered by any person than to say that the 
 high price of food has been jDroductive of anything 
 but sorrow, misery, and wretchedness to the poor ; 
 that in the progress of society in this country, in 
 
206 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 proportion as the food of tlie people has become more 
 scarce their condition has become worse ; that the 
 agricultural labourers are in some respects worse off 
 now than they were three centuries ago ; and that 
 during the last eighteen months, when food has been 
 very high, their suffermgs have been greatly aggra- 
 vated. In making this statement I am supported by 
 an authority which may be supposed to be quite un- 
 prejudiced : I allude to Mr. Hallam, who, inquiring 
 into the history of the labouring classes, is compelled, 
 after allowing for the many advantages that modern 
 inventions have procured for them, to conclude that 
 their condition has deteriorated in comparison with 
 what it was in past ages. I will quote his words : — 
 
 I should find it difficult to resist the conclusion that, however 
 the lahourer has derived benefit from the cheapness of manu- 
 factured commodities and the mventions of machinery, he is much 
 inferior in ability to support a family than his ancestors were 
 three or four centuries ago. I know not why some here sup- 
 pose meat was a luxury seldom attained by a labourer ; doubtless 
 he could have procured as much as he pleased, but from the 
 greater cheapness of cattle, it seems to follow that a more con- 
 siderable portion of his diet consisted of animal food than at pre- 
 sent. It was remarked by Sir J. Fortescue that he thought the 
 English lived far more on animal food than their neighbours the 
 French, and it was natural to ascribe their superior courage to 
 that circumstance. 
 
 It is strictly relevant to point to this circumstance 
 since we are called upon to judge of the policy of 
 these Laws by their influence on the condition of the 
 agricultural labourers. 
 
 A paper by Arthur Young in the ' Annals of 
 Agriculture ' further confirms this view, and shows 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 207 
 
 that the wages of the labourer formerly commanded 
 a larger amount of the necessaries of life than they 
 can do at present. 
 
 However, the matter need not be in doubt : it is 
 within the power of every person to know what 
 wao"es the agricultural laboui'er receives, and what 
 they will procure for him. My statements were 
 questioned as to one county to which I referred ; 
 and subsequently to the debate I made inquiry on 
 the point, and merely found that to be generally the 
 case ia the county which I had adduced as occurring 
 in some parishes of it only. Married people with 
 families rarely get more than 9s. a week — the maxi- 
 mum appears to be lis. ; and young unmarried 
 men, as able to work as the married men, earn only 
 6s. or 6s. 6d. I own that I was wholly unable to 
 learn where it was that these men preferred 6s. to 
 IO5., of which fact, however, we were assured by the 
 Member for Wiltshire. Now, when the House refers 
 to one of its very recent Reports upon the ■working 
 of the Poor Law, and finds there that a married man 
 has to spend nearly 7s. 6d. a week in bread and 
 flour, it may judge how his family must fare with 
 regard to the other wants of life. 
 
 But perhaps a more astounding argument has 
 been recently advanced for the Corn Laws than even 
 that of their being advantageous to the labourer : I 
 mean the assertion that the change is sought solely 
 by the master manufacturers in order to reduce the 
 wages of the labourer. This has actually appeared 
 in a publication of a society that has just been 
 
208 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 instituted for the professed purpose of protecting 
 British agriculture ; but, in truth, for the purpose 
 of upholding the present Corn Laws. It is stated in 
 the prospectus of this society — patronised doubtless 
 by the nobility, gentry, and clergy — that the manu- 
 facturers wish to lower the rate of wages in seekmg 
 to repeal the Corn Laws. It would be curious to 
 learn whether this is stated in ignorance or with the 
 knowledge of its being untrue. Do they know or 
 have they inquired into the condition of the people 
 in the manufacturing districts ? If they have, can 
 they say how, under any change of the law, their 
 wages could be lowered ? And, if the object of the 
 manufacturers is simply to reduce the wages of these 
 men, could they fare better than at this moment when 
 wages are at their minimum ? Have the wealthy 
 patrons of this society ever read the Eeports of the 
 Commissioners on the hand-loom weavers ? These 
 unfortimate people, amounting in number to 800,000, 
 cry out for the repeal of these Laws on the ground 
 that they are the great cause of their suffering ; and 
 yet this Agricultural Protection Society would imply 
 that Repeal is a matter affecting only the masters, 
 and that the interests of the men are against it ! 
 [Sir C. BuRREL : ' Hear, hear ! '] I hardly know 
 how to explain that cheer of the Hon. Baronet; 
 but if it be to affirm this charge against the master 
 manufacturers, I must repeat my question to him : 
 How does he explain the complamts of the masters 
 when the men are nearly starving ? The Hon. 
 Baronet should learn the condition of the people 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 209 
 
 under the operation of his Corn I^aws before he 
 talks of its being possible to make it worse by their 
 repeal. 
 
 But if any man wishes to understand the bearing 
 of this question on the manufacturing interests let 
 him read the answers of these poor weavers to the 
 Hand-loom Commissioners. If men wish to learn 
 that with which they ought already to be acquainted, 
 let them study those blue volumes containing the 
 opinions, and referring to the interests, of these 
 working men. I was really startled at their shrewd- 
 ness and sagacity ; and I was in consequence led 
 to ask one of the central Commissioners what he 
 thought of those replies. He admitted that he, like 
 myself, had been struck with the just and sagacious 
 views the hand-loom weavers took of their interests. 
 What is their simple reasonmg on this subject ? They 
 say : ' These Corn Laws act as a great restraint on 
 trade in this country ; and whatever extends the trade 
 increases the demand for labour, and with that de- 
 mand our wages rise. Whenever that demand in- 
 creases we find ourselves better off ; and we now 
 feel that these Laws are injuring us by diminishing 
 that demand and by increasing the cost of food.' It 
 is true they refer to other remedies than the repeal 
 of the Corn Laws to meet their case ; and we find 
 among their suggestions one for taxing machinery 
 and another for universal suffrage ; but these are 
 not urged altogether without reason. They say : 
 ' We have as good a right to have a tax imposed 
 upon machinery as the land-owners have to a tax 
 
 VOL. I. 1* 
 
210 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 upon the produce of more fertile soils. The country 
 in the last case is taxed for the benefit of a class : 
 we have an equal claim to a tax on machinery ; for 
 the principle is the same : it is taxing the community 
 for the benefit of a few.' And they certainly do 
 further say that if the Legislature will neither act 
 wisely as regards the public and repeal the Laws, 
 nor consistently towards them by taxing machinery, 
 then they will seek to be represented more faithfully 
 in this House than they are at present. They claim 
 the Suffrage with the view of getting justice to them- 
 selves ; and I own that I see nothing inconsequent 
 in such reasoning. 
 
 Before I quit the question of the influence of the 
 Corn Laws upon the working population, I must 
 adduce something in support of my position that 
 scarcity and dearness of provisions tend to generate 
 disease and accelerate death among them. For this 
 purpose I cannot do better than quote a letter entitled 
 to credit, from a Member of the College of Surgeons 
 now practising in an im})ortant manufacturing town. 
 Dr. Ryan, of Stockport, writes : — 
 
 I take the liberty of addressing you on the necessity of cheap 
 bread for our artisans and their families. As a medical man, I 
 feel that the results of my experience may, with propriety, be 
 added to your information on the subject. My practice is much 
 among the poorer classes in this populous town and neighbour- 
 hood ; for, in addition to my private engagements as a professional 
 man, I am the medical of&cer to the ' Stockport Board of Health,' 
 consisting of upwards of 3,000 members. I find. Sir, — 1. That 
 a large amount of the labouring population in this neighbourhood 
 is insufficiently fed and clothed ; that the scarcity of clothing 
 arises from the high price of provisions, which thus absorbs, for 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 211 
 
 the support of life, nearly all the hard-earned wages of each 
 family ; and that the cause of the insufficient diet is the high 
 price of flour. 2. I find that the scarcity of good substantial 
 food is productive of many very fatal diseases, and much misery 
 among our people, and especially among poor children, whose 
 sustenance ought to be principally farinaceous. 8. That among 
 many — very many — families, portions only of whom can at pre- 
 sent find employment, the small amount of wages accrumg 
 weekly is consumed in the purchase of oatmeal and potatoes ; 
 that whole families subsist, week after week, on meal gruel ; and 
 that payment of rent, and the purchase of fuel and clothing, are 
 out of the question ; and that the result too frequently is, the 
 confiscation of their household goods and removal to the work- 
 house. 4. That to avoid the disgrace of seekmg parochial relief, 
 the most extreme misery and starvation are constantly endured 
 by families in this town ; and, although the standard of wages is 
 continually falling, the necessaries of life are advancing in price, 
 and therefore the ratio of misery is perpetually increasing. Such, 
 Sir, are the impressions I have received in going from house to 
 house, among our labouring poor. Day after day am I com- 
 pelled to witness the most heartrending scenes of misery and pri- 
 vation, such, in fact, as none but medical men are allowed to 
 behold, for the decent pride of an Englishman ever prompts him 
 to conceal the full extent of his poverty from the public view. I 
 have given you. Sir, no laboured details, no speculative theories, 
 no proposed methods of amelioration. I leave, Sir, the remedy, 
 with confidence, m the hands of men like yourself, who, 
 prompted, I trust, by the principles of sound and unflinching 
 philanthropy, will never rest until laws unnatural as the Corn 
 Laws are, be for ever erased from the Statute-book. 
 
 I have also been supplied with a table showing 
 the effect on the population of a high and low price 
 of food. I regret that the table has not been com- 
 pleted down to the last year ; but it is sufficient 
 to enable us to form an opinion on the subject. I 
 will not read the whole table to the House, but 
 merely a portion of it showing the total number of 
 deaths in seven of the manufacturing districts of 
 
212 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 England at four different periods, together •with the 
 average prices of wheat per quarter at each period : — 
 
 Years 
 
 Average Price of 
 "Wheat per 
 Quarter 
 
 Deaths 
 
 Bxoeaa of Deaths above 
 those of the year 1804, when 
 wheat was 60i. per quarter 
 
 1801 
 1804 
 1807 
 1810 
 
 S. d. 
 
 118 3 
 60 1 
 73 3 
 
 106 2 
 
 55,965 
 44,794 
 48,108 
 54,864 
 
 11,171 
 
 3,314 
 10,070 
 
 This shows that in the ratio that food was cheap the 
 health of the community was good. 
 
 Is it not something shocking for the Legislature 
 deliberately to persist in maintaining Laws that are 
 ever spreading disease, occasioning death, and weigh- 
 ing down industry ; and all this for no other purpose 
 than to add to the wealth of persons who do nothing 
 themselves to add to the wealth of the country ? I 
 do not mean to say that the wealthy classes are more 
 unfeeling or hard-hearted than other people : the fact 
 is they are not aware of the extent of the evil and of 
 the misery occasioned by the Corn Laws, being mis- 
 led by those who ought to know better. I believe 
 that if they knew the real consequences of these 
 Laws they would meet the question in a very diffe- 
 rent way from that in which they now meet it. But 
 under the circumstances, would it not be worse than 
 idle to let it be contended that the Home Trade is 
 benefited by these Laws, when men have hardly the 
 withal to buy bread, and consequently are obliged to 
 forego the purchase of manufactures ? 
 
 The manufacturers' case is, in one respect, that 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 213 
 
 the Home Trade is injured by their customers being 
 deprived of theu* ordinary means of consumption ; 
 and though their case may have been misrepresented, 
 it has not yet been disproved that by the Corn Laws 
 you deprive them of customers both at home and 
 abroad. With countries having only food to ex- 
 change for manufactures they are debarred from 
 trading, for they are unable to effect the exchange 
 that is essential to commerce. It is no answer to 
 this objection to the Corn Laws that the wholp ex- 
 ports of this country, with reference either to the 
 character of the exports or to the countries to which 
 they are sent, increase. It may satisfy the country 
 that losing the markets of Europe has not yet been 
 fatal to our commerce ; but it does not negative the fact 
 that these markets are closed against us, and that the 
 inconvenience arising from the terms on which alone 
 we would allow trade to be conducted has induced 
 those States to manufacture for themselves and to 
 exclude the manufactures of this country. 
 
 And with respect to the Home Trade, it will not 
 do to deny that it has been our policy to close and 
 check the commerce between this country and other 
 States. We have had a paper laid on the Table since 
 the last discussion proving it to be the case. I will 
 read the House an extract from the paper, consisting 
 of the proposal of the Prussian Government to this 
 country in 1826 — before the ZoUverein was formed 
 — to enter into a Treaty of Commerce with us. The 
 proposal runs thus : — 
 
 Assuming, then, that it will be agreeable to the British 
 
214 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Government to learn that Prussia is disposed to conclude a treaty 
 of reciprocity, the Court of Berlin has directed the imdersigned 
 to propose to his Excellency, Mr. Canning, to enter into negotia- 
 tion for that purpose. It would be ready to engage to make no 
 change in its existing system for a certain number of years, and 
 specifically not to increase the duties of import on English mer- 
 chandise. But, on the other hand, it expects that the British 
 Government will allow the importation of Prussian corn, subject 
 to such duties as shall not exclude the possibility of carrying on 
 that trade with a reasonable profit, and that it wiU grant greater 
 facilities than it does at present to the importation of timber 
 coming from the ports of Prussia. As the produce of English 
 industry finds a very extensive market in the Prussian monarchy, 
 whilst, on the other hand, Prussia can only import into England 
 the produce of its soil, and principally corn and wood, it is evi- 
 dent that it is only by granting facilities to the importation of 
 these two articles that it is possible to establish the relations 
 between the two countries on a footing of reciprocity. 
 
 This was the distuict proposal submitted by the 
 Prussian Government to our Minister. And what 
 was the answer that Mr. Canning was compelled by 
 the absurd policy of the Legislature of his country 
 to make ? It was this : — 
 
 It becomes His Majesty's Government, in the judgment of 
 this Committee, when a proposal for altermg our Corn Laws is 
 made to us by a foreign Government, as a condition of something 
 to be done or omitted by that Government, at once to declare 
 that we never can entertain such a proposal. 
 
 This was the answer that the British Mmister 
 was compelled to give to a foreign power proposing 
 to enter into a beneficial Treaty of Commerce with 
 this country, on whose manufactui'ing prosperity de- 
 pends the livelihood of millions of our people ! This 
 was the reception that the offers of the Prussian 
 Government met with before the ZoUvereia was 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 215 
 
 formed ! And what do we hear since the formation of 
 the ZoUverein, at present includmg twenty-six millions 
 of people who for commercial purposes are ready to act 
 together ? From all our Miiaisters, from every Com- 
 missioner that we have sent to collect information on 
 the subject, we hear that even now, before they again 
 decide the amount of their tariffs as against this 
 country, they are still ready to negotiate with us ; 
 that it is the prevailing wish and desire among the 
 people of those States to trade with us. But what 
 can we do, if the Legislature pertinaciously refuses to 
 allow us to place ourselves in a condition to negotiate 
 with them ? For, as the French Minister wisely 
 said, ' To get concessions from others we ought to be 
 in a condition to grant them.' 
 
 If there be any doubt about the uaterest of the 
 states in the ZoUverein to trade with England, let the 
 respective interests of the people on each side be ex- 
 amined. Admitting that there are twenty-six millions 
 of people ui these islands, and twenty-six millions 
 m the ZoUverein, what proportion, on the one hand 
 and the other, is interested in agriculture and in 
 manufactures ? I answer that in the ZoUverein nearly 
 eighteen milUons in agriculture and the remainder 
 only partially in manufactures ; whereas in England 
 those who may be termed the agricultural interest are 
 seldom put at more than one-fourth, and we know 
 that this proportion has been gradually diminish- 
 ing while the manufacturing interest has been in- 
 creasing. It is clear, therefore, that the interests of 
 the respective populations lie in an interchange of 
 
216 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 their mutual products ; and consequently, as it is 
 of great consequence to re-establish, our commercial 
 relations with these States, this is a most important 
 moment. In 1842 the tariffs will have been fixed 
 and, I believe, will not be altered again for twelve 
 years. The same is the law with the United States. 
 It is only an accident that their tariff has not been 
 discussed this year : it will be next. 
 
 Now, I beg distinctly to call the attention of the 
 House and of the country to these circumstances, in 
 order to preclude all possibility of doubt as to the 
 reason of our losing this advantage, if it is to be 
 lost ; and I make this statement deliberately in order 
 that it may be referred to in future when the people are 
 distressed and the manufactures are declining. The 
 people will call to account for their condition those 
 to whom they have intrusted their interests when they 
 come to judge whether those interests have been pro- 
 tected or betrayed. It will be idle then to twaddle 
 about what is called a ' System of Protection ; ' and 
 the notion is absurd that the Corn Laws ai'e only 
 part of that system, when all other protected classes 
 have repeatedly declared that the only Protection they 
 desire is against the effects of the Corn Laws. 
 
 Even those who have been most tardy and timid 
 in expressing their opinion on this subject (I mean 
 those engaged in the silk trade) have rested their 
 claim for Protection on the ground that there is 
 yet maintained a Monopoly in all articles of necessary 
 consumption. The weavers of Coventry have lately 
 cried out against the Corn Laws, as one great cause 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 217 
 
 of the diminishing demand for their labour and value 
 of their wages.. The people know and feel too well 
 now- — and they will have to feel it still more, though 
 the rulers of this country may be ignorant of it — in 
 what way Trade with other countries affects them ; 
 and what a fraudulent fallacy it is to assert that the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws would reduce their wages. 
 They know too well on what terms Foreign Trade is 
 carried on now. They have the daily experience of 
 orders coming over to them to be executed at certain 
 low prices or not at all. And what a fearful struggle 
 is constantly going on with men with large families, 
 as to whether, working fourteen and sixteen hours 
 a day at the expense of health and happiness for a 
 miserable pittance, they shall execute the orders, or 
 whether they shall refuse them and go at once to the 
 workhouse. I know that this is a struggle that every 
 year becomes more severe, and that the time will soon 
 arrive when the prices offered to the operatives will 
 be so low that they will be unable to work and 
 sustaia life upon them ; and when they refuse them, 
 .the foreign merchant or, indeed, the English mer- 
 chant wUl then get them executed in Belgium or 
 Grermany. What an insult it is then to their sense 
 and to their poverty to tell them, when the money 
 they receive is each year lower, that the price of food 
 being high is an advantage to them ! And it is by 
 this difference between the condition of the manu- 
 facturing classes as compared with former years, it 
 is by the result of these and other silly and suicidal 
 restrictions on the freedom of commerce, that rivals 
 
218 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 are created, trade rendered languid, and industry 
 cheated of its reward. 
 
 What excuse can any man of understanding pre- 
 tend to find for such evUs in the notion that the Corn 
 Laws will avert a dependence on other countries for 
 food ? This silly fear of dependence, which is an 
 argument against commerce altogether if it be worth 
 anything, has, after being ridiculed so as almost to 
 preclude its repetition, been revived again this year 
 on the authority of the President of the United States 
 of America, and of Marshal Bugeaud in France. In 
 short, the landed aristocracy of this country, having 
 no argument of their own for the Corn Laws, eagerly 
 seize upon what falls from a Republican President as 
 applicable to his own country, to j ustify them in the 
 maintenance of an anti-national Monopoly in this 
 country. And what was the saying of this personage 
 that has so delighted the landlords of England ? 
 Mr. Van Buren declared that nothing could be more 
 disastrous for a country than to depend upon another 
 country for its food ; and Marshal Bugeaud, in the 
 French Chamber, said that he would sooner see a 
 Russian army march through France than see Ger- 
 man beef consumed by French people. So that the 
 people of England are to be half starved because 
 such great characters have uttered these very wise 
 sayings ! 
 
 I could tell Mr. Van Buren, I think, what would 
 be more disastrous than depending upon another 
 country for food ; and that would be not to have 
 another country to depend upon when you cannot 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 219 
 
 supply yourself. And that must be the case with 
 England, if our present policy is continued, ^\hat- 
 ever it may be with the United States. We cannot 
 supply ourselves ; after twenty-five years' expei'ience 
 of the Corn Laws we have just experienced a greater 
 deficiency than we have ever known before. 
 
 With respect to the French Marshal, he repre- 
 sented, I presume, the grazing interest of his country, 
 and his doctrine has as much the good of the people 
 to recommend it as the arguments of the land-owner 
 in favour of the Corn Laws have to do with the 
 general good of our country. But English people 
 are not to be deceived by trash of this kind : they 
 know that men do not grow grain to give it away ; 
 and that it does not follow, as the case of Ireland 
 pretty well proves, that a nation must be able to 
 consume the corn that it produces. The people of 
 this country must have the means of purchasing 
 com ; and the silly persons who are now injuring 
 them by depriving them of custom for their manu- 
 factures are, in truth, only depriving themselves of 
 their best market. 
 
 I have now exhausted the pretences of a public 
 kind that are pleaded for the Corn Laws, and 1 
 contend that they are pretences that will not and 
 cannot be much longer advanced. I think that there 
 was some recognition of the truth of my contention 
 during the last Debate. And, in proof of it, I would 
 refer in the first place to what fell from the Member 
 for Bassetlaw, who after beating about the bush a long 
 while — at one time attempting to question my state- 
 
220 PREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ments about the wages of labourers and tben dis- 
 puting tbe accuracy of my reference to the Revenue, 
 finally said that he could not shut his eyes to the 
 great advantage that these Laws gave to the aristo- 
 cracy ; that, in fact, by this means they tended much 
 to preserve the nice balance of power in the country 
 which had conduced so much to its greatness and 
 its glory ; and that on this account he would uphold 
 them. A prmciple that certainly is intelhgible, 
 whether or not it was discreet to avow it. 1 know 
 no answer to it except that suggested by the question 
 of the people, whether the price they pay for this nice 
 balance of power is not rather too great. 
 
 The Member for Bassetlaw was, if I remember 
 rightly, followed by the Hon. Member for the North 
 Riding. His defence of the Corn Laws was some- 
 what in contrast with that of his colleague on a 
 former occasion, who was in the habit of envelop- 
 ing the question with a cloud of statistics that left 
 us in doubt as to what we were discussing. The 
 Hon. Member warned us on this side not to suppose 
 that the land-owners were so soft as to give up the 
 Corn Laws. This was fair enough, for it at least 
 placed the question on intelligible grounds : between 
 him and the people it becomes simply a question as 
 to which will be soft enough to surrender their claims. 
 Thus we have it admitted that the Corn Laws give 
 extraordinary power to the aristocracy, and that the 
 aristocracy are not the people to surrender them. 
 
 And, indeed, this mode of arguing the ques- 
 tion is not inconsistent with that pursued by the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 221 
 
 Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, wlio also seems 
 to me to have abandoned the attempt to argue it 
 on its own merits ; and when the Noble Lord the 
 Member for Shropshire asks me why I do not reply 
 to the Right Hon. Baronet, I mtist tell the Noble 
 Lord that I have first to learn that the Right 
 Hon. Baronet differs from me. I suspect that he 
 agrees with me more than with the Noble Lord : 
 I argue against the Corn Laws, and the Right 
 Hon. Baronet does not argue for them, he only 
 fences with the friends of Repeal ; and the differ- 
 ence between him and his opponents is simply as 
 to the degree of mischief that they produce. The 
 sum of his arguments appears to be that the camel's 
 back is not yet broken ; on the contrary, he says 
 that the animal is very buoyant ; he seems almost 
 to doubt whether the burden does not conduce to 
 its buoyancy ; but if its back were broken, he con- 
 tends, other backs have been broken also, and in 
 other places by other burdens. These are not his 
 words, but they are a fair illustration of what he 
 said. He proceeded with all that order and propriety 
 which distinguish his addresses, to dissect the state- 
 ments and speeches of those who are in favour of 
 this Motion. He said that he would repeat to the 
 House the substance of what had been alleged against 
 the Corn Laws — namely, that they occasion a great 
 derangement of our monetary affairs ; that they cause 
 great fluctuations of price in corn ; and that they tend 
 to cripple the manufacturing interests. ' And then,' 
 he added, ' see how I will deal with these arguments. 
 
222 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 In the first place you complain that they distui^b the 
 monetary system of the country. Now, I tell you 
 that the Currency has been deranged before; and 
 upon such occasions no person attributed that result 
 to the operation of the Corn Laws. I say, further, 
 that the Currency has been deranged in the United 
 States, and that commercial embarrassment has 
 occurred in France ; and these results cannot have 
 been owing to such a cause as you ascribe them 
 to in this country. Again, with respect to the 
 fluctuations in the price, this argument would imply 
 that other articles are steady in price. Now, I can 
 prove that coffee has fluctuated in price as well as 
 corn ; and that is my answer to your argument 
 which would show that the Corn Laws have greatly 
 aggravated the evils that are alleged to have occurred.' 
 I could more fully illustrate the justice of my re- 
 mark upon the Hon. Baronet's speech ; but the fault 
 in his argument was so obvious to everybody at the 
 time, and it has been so commented upon in all the 
 papers since, that I will not further take up your 
 time by referring to it. 
 
 But the Eight Hon. Baronet went on to show 
 that there was error in supposing the country not 
 to be in a prosperous state ; and he showed this 
 in a way that was certainly convenient : he assumed 
 his own test of the fact. It was contended on this 
 side that the people were badly off ; that there was 
 but scanty employment for their industry ; that 
 the difiiculties cast in the way of trade by the 
 restraints which the Corn Laws impose upon com- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 223 
 
 merce prevent a steady or sufficient demand for 
 the labour of this country ; and we have shown 
 that internal consumption has declined during the 
 late year. Now, what says the Eight Hon. Baronet? 
 He says : ' I cannot look at your proofs of declining 
 trade — they are unsatisfactory if they are just ; but 
 I have here that which is conclusive on the subject. 
 I have in my hand a Return of the exports to the 
 whole world from this country, and I find that 
 during the last year they have increased ; therefore 
 there can be no distress ; therefore the trade of this 
 country is extending to the different parts of the 
 world. [Lord Daelington : ' Hear, hear ! '] The 
 Noble Lord appears to assent by his cheer to the 
 conclusiveness of that reasoning. Would he then 
 at all times think an increased number of mortffaa'es 
 and auctions conclusive of the prosperity of the 
 landed interest ? If he ■^vould not, does it not show 
 that the amount of property transferred or sold is 
 not conclusive as to the extent of the demand for it ; 
 and that unless a supply of any article is maintained 
 with a view to the steady and adequate demand for 
 it, it is rather a proof of loss or misfortune than of 
 prosperity ? And surely this is the reply to the 
 Right Hon. Baronet's reasoning from an uniisual 
 amount of exports, in which he appeared to assume 
 that there cannot be consignments of goods arismg 
 from necessity as well as to meet an increasing de- 
 mand. The manufacturers allege that the articles 
 entered for home consumption have been less, while 
 the exports have increased ; and that the exports 
 
224 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 have so increased because there has been less demand 
 for them at home in consequence of a high price of 
 food. 
 
 And here let me remind the Noble Lord who 
 claims the Right Hon. Baronet as the champion of 
 the landed interest, that if the Eight Hon. Baronet 
 fails in proving that the Corn Laws are compatible 
 with the prosperity of manufactures, he is not so 
 important an advocate of the landed interest as he 
 assumes him to be ; for the Right Hon. Baronet, if 
 I understood him rightly, I wUl not exactly say 
 threw overboard, but certainly set aside the favourite 
 fancies of the country gentlemen on this question. 
 It cannot but be remembered that after they had 
 been for three consecutive nights showing us in 
 their accustomed strain how it was that they had 
 made the world go round, the Right Hon. Baronet 
 rose and more than hinted to them how unadvis- 
 able it was to indulge in those notions of their con- 
 sequence. He unhesitatingly avowed that it was 
 not the idle and unproductive classes that had ag- 
 grandized this country, but that all her greatness 
 and wealth were to be referred to her skill in manu- 
 facture and her enterprise in commerce ; and then, 
 after the admission of this truth, the Hon. Baronet 
 showed the proper way to evade the real question ; 
 and he did this, not by disputing about the sources 
 of our wealth and power, but by protesting that 
 wealth and power had been attained, and that it 
 would be dangerous to do anything to place them in 
 jeopardy ; that as we had become great with the Corn 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 225 
 
 Laws we should be unwise to attempt to become 
 greater by repealing them : in short, by implying that 
 we had become great in consequence of them, and not 
 in spite of them. 
 
 If I am asked why I did not answer that argu- 
 ment in the best manner, I should say that it was 
 because I had not had time to look into one of the 
 Right Hon. Baronet's speeches in which he had been 
 obliged to answer it himself because it had been 
 brought against him. I knew that he had made 
 such a speech ; for I remembered being in the House 
 when he replied to an attack on' this very ground 
 upon ]\Ir. Huskisson, when that statesman sought, 
 much to his honour, to introduce more liberal prin- 
 ciples into our commercial policy. Referring after- 
 wards to the debates of that period, I found the 
 following remark upon some senseless fear of change 
 expressed on that occasion : — 
 
 Mr. Secretary Peel exhorted the House to firmness, reminding 
 it that the eyes of Europe were upon it ; and he warned Parha- 
 ment how greatly those sound and irrefragable priaciples of com- 
 mercial policy, which they had heard so ably advocated, would 
 be prejudiced, if it were to yield to the fears of the timid, or the 
 representations of the interested. 
 
 This exhortation, I contend, might be applied 
 with equal justice to the Right Hon. Baronet's argu- 
 ment in favour of the Corn Laws. What was his 
 argument on this occasion ? He led us over half the 
 globe inviting us to reflect on the vast possessions 
 that we had acquired, on the grandeur and extent of 
 our empire and the power that we possessed ; and 
 
 VOL. I. Q 
 
226 I-REE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 then, when we were lost in the contemplation of 
 so much greatness and dominion, and hardly aware 
 whether we were in England or Hindostan, he put it 
 to us to consider whether it was not miraculous that 
 we had achieved such glory, and whether it would 
 not be presumptuous, and whether it would not be 
 worse than folly, to place it in danger by any experi- 
 mental theory like that of the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws ! 
 
 Now the Right Hon. Baronet knows well that this 
 is precisely the sort of argument that has been used 
 against himself whenever he has assumed the character 
 of reformer, which as we know he does assume 
 occasionally, and which we think suits his disposition 
 far better than the character he is now assuming. 
 He at one time employed himself very worthily in 
 removing some of the black spots from our criminal 
 code. We know since that he was then charged with 
 disturbing what had been part of our system under 
 which we had become great and glorious ; and that 
 he who was at the head of the Legislature deemed 
 him a dangerous innovator in his own Cabinet. 
 
 Again, when the Right Hon. Baronet, highly 
 to his credit, introduced a more perfect system of 
 police, the old and inefficient system then existing 
 was pointed to as being co-existent with all that we 
 valued most in our institutions, and we had a sort 
 of Saxon sentiment revived in favour of the old 
 system of watch under which our habitations were 
 unguarded and our streets in a state revolting to 
 decency. 
 
House of commons. 227 
 
 The Hon. Baronet knows that this is the hack- 
 neyed weapon with which every reformer is assailed 
 whenever any abuse is attacked, and whenever any 
 fallacy is worn out or exploded. And 1 take it to 
 be the Right Hon. Baronet's predicament now that 
 he has no other weapon to use. For what was the 
 reason that the Hon. Baronet assigned for his vote, 
 as he told it to us ? Why, that my Motion was 
 one for a total repeal of the Corn Laws. In the 
 first place that is not my Motion. I have, on the 
 contrary, proposed only to test the House as to its 
 determination of maintaining the Laws as they are : 
 I move the preliminary form of a Committee of the 
 whole House to consider the Corn Laws. The 
 Right Hon. Baronet seems to dissent from my in- 
 terpretation of my own Motion. Well, then, I will 
 give him that of one of his own partisans. The 
 Hon. Member for Lincolnshhe ^ began his speech by 
 saying that he considered this a very fair Motion, 
 calculated to enlist all those who were not satisfied 
 with the present Corn Laws ; that in fact it woiild 
 test the opinion of the House as to the working of 
 the present Laws ; and that he should oppose it 
 because he was perfectly satisfied with the working 
 of the present Laws. That was the view which the 
 Hon. Member for Lincolnshire took of the matter 
 on which he was about to vote ; and he, as we know, 
 is among the most tenacious for the continuance of 
 the Corn Laws. 
 
 But the Right Hon. Baronet said that he had 
 
 ' ]\Ir. Christopher. 
 
228 FEEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 no encouragement to go into a Committee of the 
 whole House with me, for he observed that I treated 
 one of my own friends with great asperity for not 
 going my length in opinion, who nevertheless was 
 willing to vote for the Committee. If I said a word 
 in an unfriendly spirit to my Hon. Friend the 
 Member for Cambridge, I owe him, and I offer him, 
 every apology for it : to say anything in an unfriendly 
 spirit, was far from my intention. Had I then 
 heard his speech, which followed my own, I should 
 have abstained from saymg what I did. When I 
 saw his particular plan I certainly did fear that he was 
 going to give his great authority as an economist 
 to a very trifling Amendment ; and I was not 
 aware, till he announced it in his speech, that he 
 was, as he said, bound up by connection and in- 
 terest with the agricultural party ; and that he was 
 returned for a borough in the centre of an agri- 
 cultural district. I think that the Hon. Member did 
 aU that could have been expected of him in giving 
 his sanction to some change in the Laws and de- 
 livering an excellent speech in favour of Free Trade. 
 But can such arguments as these have any 
 weight in the country when gentlemen know that 
 they can do just as they please on this question ? 
 They may refuse all change ; they may grant ever 
 so small a change ; and they have the power to 
 retrace their steps whenever they please. Is it not 
 idle, therefore, to pretend that they are afraid of the 
 consequences of going into an inquiry into the opera- 
 tion of the Corn Laws ? Surely it is something like 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 229 
 
 trifling with the question ; and certainly a question 
 involving as this does the commerce of the country, 
 the economy of the country, and the general condition 
 of the people, ought not thus to be dealt with. 
 
 I can hardly suppose that the Right Hon. Baronet 
 himself can be satisfied with the course that he is 
 pursuing upon it. He must, I think, see that it is 
 scarcely candid towards either side. If he cannot 
 bring himself to utter the things that the common 
 advocates of the Laws allow themselves to, it would 
 be better for him to act upon his conviction and 
 tell his friends that they are wrong. The Right 
 Hon. Baronet appears to me by his arguments to con- 
 firm the advocates of Repeal in the justice of their 
 opinions, and by his vote he encourages his fi-iends 
 in the injustice of their course. 
 
 It is not for me to warn him of the responsi- 
 bility he is incurring on this question ; but I cannot 
 help submitting to him that the question is one that 
 differs materially from many others ; and chiefly in 
 this respect : there are thousands who, refusing to 
 inquire into it for themselves, depend entirely upon 
 the Right Hon. Baronet's authority for maintaining 
 the Corn Laws. And I have no doubt that there 
 are numbers satisfied to uphold them upon the con- 
 viction that the Right Hon. Baronet, with all his 
 experience, all his information, all the considera- 
 tion that he has given to the varied interests of this 
 country, would never persist in maintaining them 
 and denying the evils that are charged upon them 
 if he did not feel convinced of the policy and justice 
 
230 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 of his course. This is the way in which hundreds 
 are now sparing themselves from all responsibility, 
 and justifying themselves to their opponents. 
 
 But there is another peculiarity attending the 
 maintenance of the Corn Laws that the Right 
 Hon. Baronet has doubtless well considered : he 
 cannot select the moment to retrace his steps on this 
 matter should it prove that he has been in error. 
 And, further, unlike some other questions, he cannot 
 in this matter announce at pleasure the tune to be 
 arrived when he should change the law. No ! if the 
 evidence is true that is now disregarded, the time 
 will be past when the effects contemplated by the 
 opponents of the Corn Laws have occurred : when 
 rivalry abroad has been successful in supplanting 
 us, when capital has been driven from the country, 
 when our artisans have carried their skUI to other 
 countries, when our colonies are seen receiving manu- 
 factures from foreigners — then it will be too late to talk 
 of removing impolitic restraints upon the employment 
 of our capital and of extending the demand for the in- 
 dustry of our labouring classes. Distress will then 
 have induced the working people to advance claims 
 that Ministers will be unwilling to concede, but unable 
 to resist. Can the Right Hon. Baronet really think 
 that the experiment he is making is a safe one ? 
 Does he see nothing in the social and poUtical aspect 
 of our affairs to deserve consideration ? Will he say 
 that it would be unwise for us to turn our thoughts to 
 that which is now giving constant anxiety to men 
 who reflect upon the condition of this country — I 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 231 
 
 mean the poverty, the sense of oppression, and the 
 increasing intelligence that now prevail amongst 
 that large mass of otir fellow-beings who earn their 
 living by their labour ? Would it be a useless appli- 
 cation of our time to consider in what way we could 
 diminish that distress and allay that irritation ? 
 Surely we should face this question, however much 
 the remedies that it involves may bear upon private 
 interests ? A man may not be called upon to forego 
 his own advantages for the public good ; but if he 
 enters this House, he does, in my opinion, engage to 
 do so ; and whatever the result may be it would be 
 folly to neglect the inquiry I am suggesting. 
 
 And, after all, need we go very deep to discover 
 the causes of this grave state of things ? How can 
 people be contented who are suffering ; whose con- 
 dition is deteriorating ; whose intelligence is in- 
 creasing ; whose intercourse with each other is every 
 hour extending, and disclosing to them their common 
 interests and their common wrongs, disclosing to 
 them the manner in which power is distributed and 
 the manner in which it is used, disclosing the 
 striking inequalities of many conditions — how in many 
 cases the very idle are very rich, and the most in- 
 dustrious the most in want ; the whole resulting in a 
 conviction on their minds that there is a connection 
 between the Laws of this country and their misery ? 
 Of this connection they are now persuaded ; and their 
 impressions are confirmed by the avowed opinions 
 of some of the most enlightened and estimable men 
 in the country. They have not a doubt about the 
 
232 PREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 matter ; and all the sophistry and aU the abuse that 
 may be employed against them will not engender 
 one. Their feelings are each day quickened by the 
 distress which increases with their increasing num- 
 bers ; and though we may term any manifestation 
 of their feelings Chartism, yet we may feel sure that 
 we shall not rid ourselves of this social bugbear 
 till we have removed its cause. 
 
 The people in this country do not want dis- 
 turbance ; disturbance and agitation are opposed to 
 their habits of industry and the feelings that have 
 ever characterized them : they ask for better employ- 
 ment of their industry, better reward for their toil. 
 They are ill-fed, over-woi'ked, and under-paid : they 
 seek the improvement of their condition ; and for 
 this purpose they call upon you to inquire into their 
 grievances. Is there anything that we have yet done 
 or have it in contemplation to do that wiU render the 
 country more safe or the people more satisfied ? Will 
 anything be done to effect this by rudely refusing 
 inquiry into the giant grievance that I bring before 
 you ; or will such refusal be rendered more tolerable 
 by the additional burdens that are now heaped upon 
 those already borne ? Let it only be asked if this is 
 wise ? How soon is it that circumstances may arise 
 in the world that may make it most important for us 
 to be found united at home ? What has always been 
 the difficulty of those States where the institution 
 of slavery exists in going to war ? Primarily and 
 above everything the reasonable distrust that their 
 Grovernments have of the great mass of the people. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 233 
 
 They are conscious that they have earned their hate 
 and they always dread their vengeance. It was so 
 in the ancient States, it is so still. 
 
 I believe that in free communities want and 
 necessity create a kind of social bondage under which 
 feelings of a similar kind may be engendered. It is 
 useless to deny that such indications have of late 
 been apparent : I sincerely trust they may not pre- 
 vail. What was the answer the other day, as we 
 have seen it reported, of the poor peasant when he 
 was asked whether the repeal of the Com Laws 
 would do him harm. ' Harm, Sir ! ' said he, ' how 
 can I be worse off anyhow than I am ? ' This was 
 the man who was receiving for his labour the aver- 
 age pittance of 7s. or 9s. a week, and who had to 
 forego what was essential to health, to strength, to 
 decency in appearance, in order to provide for his 
 wretched wife and children and preserve them from 
 the confinement of the Workhouse. Feelings engen- 
 dered by such circumstances cannot but work mischief. 
 And yet such are the circumstances of very many of 
 the working people in different parts of the country. 
 
 In the name, then, of those who love peace, who 
 would have order, who dread confusion, I now entreat 
 this House gravely and deliberately to take this ques- 
 tion into their consideration : the question of the 
 Laws that enhance the cost of food to a people hourly 
 increasing and hourly becoming more distressed. 
 
 If you hesitate to do so, think for a moment 
 whether you wiU be able to maintain these Laws — 
 Laws revolting to justice and policy, felt to be so by 
 
234 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ourselves and pointed at by all the States around us 
 as a nuisance to them and a satire upon the pre- 
 tended freedom of our Constitution. Will you con- 
 tinue to make this experiment against the order of 
 nature ? — for this is what you are doing in attempting 
 to confine the people of this island to the food grown 
 within its limits when all experience of nature and 
 the provision of nature shows that you need not, and 
 that you cannot do so. The opposite line of conduct 
 is found in the history of the peopling of the world : 
 it is when the population exceeds the means of 
 support that man goes forth to find the means of life 
 in a distant land ; it is as he advances in civiliza- 
 tion that he finds that he can employ his labour 
 in fabricating that which can be exchanged for food 
 with a people differently circumstanced. 
 
 And this is the state in which we now find our- 
 selves ; and it is this natural and traditional means 
 of obtaining food that the Coi-n Laws attempt to pre- 
 vent. The necessary fruits of the experiment we 
 have witnessed this year in the spread of destitu- 
 tion, disease, and death. To render Laws with such 
 results endurable, you must show them to be inevi- 
 table. But can you believe this to be possible, in 
 opposition to the deliberate judgment of those whose 
 names are the most revered among us, who have de- 
 nounced the principle of such Laws as impious, im- 
 politic, and wrong? Hear the words of Burke on 
 the subject : — 
 
 God hath given the earth to the children of men ; and He, 
 undoubtedly, in giving it to them, has given them what is 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 235 
 
 abundantly sufBcient for all their exigencies, — not a scanty, but 
 a most liberal provision. The Author of our nature has written 
 it strongly in that nature, and has promulgated the same thing 
 in His word, that man shall eat his bread by his labour ; and I 
 am persuaded that no man, or combination of men, for their own 
 profit, can, without great impiety, undertake to say that he shall 
 not do so, and that they have any sort of right either to prevent 
 the labour or to withhold the bread. 
 
 The authority of Dr. Johnson may be quoted on 
 the same side. In a conversation with Sir Thomas 
 Robinson upon a law that was proposed respecting 
 the admission of Irish produce into England, when Sir 
 Thomas Robinson observed that those laws might be 
 prejudicial to the corn interest in England, Dr. John- 
 son said : ' Sir Thomas, you talk the language of a 
 savage. What, Sir, would you prevent any people 
 from feeding themselves, if by any honest means they 
 could do it ? ' And Dr. Chalmers has declared that the 
 Corn Laws infect the whole air of British society ; 
 and that there will be no peace untO. they are repealed. 
 
 I fear that I have occupied the House too long : I 
 will now leave the question in your hands trusting 
 that you will avail yourselves of the accident that has 
 given you a second opportunity of considering it, and 
 that you will consent to the Motion that I have now 
 to make : That the House resolve itself into a Com- 
 mittee to take into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV. 
 c. 60, regulating the importation of foreign grain. 
 
236 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 VII, 
 
 MANCHESTEE, April 15, 1841. 
 
 On April 15, 1841, a public meeting attended by nearly 2,000 members 
 of the League, was held in the Corn Exchange, Manchester, to confirm the 
 resolutions passed at the meeting of delegates from the chief towns of 
 England, held earlier on the same day to consider what course should be 
 pursued by the League with regard to Mr, Villiers's Annual Motion. Mr. 
 Villiers made the speech of the evening. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, not 
 then in Parliament, were present, together with many other leaders of the 
 movement, and both spoke. Mr. James Wilson's resolution, that deputies 
 from all the Anti-Gorn-Law Associations in the kingdom should be invited 
 to assemble in London at the time when Mr. Villiers brought forward his 
 motion on the Corn Laws, having been carried, the Rev. S. Beardsall, 
 seconded by the Eev. W. Mountford, moved in accordance with Mr. 
 Villiers's speech, ' That the constantly increasing physical sufferings of the 
 labouring population, arising from want of employment and the scarcity 
 of food, are inimical to the progress of religion and morality, and this 
 meeting earnestly appeals to ministers of the Gospel, and to philanthro- 
 pists, and Christians of every denomination, to lend their aid in the effort 
 to abolish the unjust tax upon the importation of the first necessaries of 
 life — a tax which impiouslj' thwarts the bounteous designs of Providence, 
 who has prepared abundantly upon the face of the earth for the wants of 
 all His creatures.' 
 
 I THANK you for your very cordial reception. It is 
 far more than my feeble efforts in the cause merit, 
 though it is consistent with the readmess that I have 
 always observed among the people to appreciate any 
 service honestly intended to them by their friends. 
 
 I view this meeting with great satisfaction as 
 offering further evidence of the interest that the people 
 are now taking in the subject of the Corn Laws. 
 And as the humble advocate of reason ia Parliament, 
 I am specially alive to the importance of public mani- 
 
MANCHESTKR. 237 
 
 festations of sucli interest ; for experience has both 
 taught me how little good can be done in that 
 assembly without the influence of the people, and led 
 me to expect success even in this case, with a manly- 
 spirited and intelligent co-operation from without. 
 This co-operation I think I have now secured. The 
 country at last appears to be awakened to the true 
 cause of the great evil that pervades it ; and people 
 in every quarter are denouncing the error and in- 
 justice of a system that allows one class to rob 
 another and the strongest to rob them all. 
 
 It is cheering to see the great principles of liberty 
 invoked to redress the wrongs of uidustry and com- 
 merce, as they were in former tunes applied to relieve 
 the mind and body of man from bondage. And, 
 based as our cause is on truth, with justice and the 
 common good for our end, I have no more doubt of 
 the ultimate success of those principles in this case, 
 than I have of the triumphs that we have achieved in 
 the cause of civil and rehgious liberty. 
 
 Since I last had the honour of addressing an 
 assembly in this great town, the cause of Repeal has 
 made immense progress. Had it remained stationary, 
 I should not have despaired ; but there are signs, and 
 unmistakable ones, that we are advancing rapidly. 
 The truth on this question is now penetrating the 
 recesses of power, and the strongholds of Monopoly 
 are beginning to be shaken. The appalling distress 
 that for three years past has been bearing down 
 the productive classes of the country has compelled 
 public attention to the warnings and declarations of 
 
238 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the opponents of the Corn Laws, and the Monopolists 
 have at last been thrown on their defence. 
 
 Is there a candid man who can say that they have 
 strengthened their case by the least pretence of justice 
 in defending these odious Laws? Or have they raised 
 themselves one degree in public esteem by the weapons 
 that they have had recourse to ? A nd, if you consider 
 what a giant power the Monopolists constitute, deriv- 
 ing, as they do, their immense influence from social 
 position, from political privilege, and pecuniary means, 
 how could advocates of Repeal have advanced as they 
 have but by the force of truth and the justice of their 
 cause ? Thanks to the zeal, untiring energy, and sacri- 
 fices of every kind of many whom I see around me, 
 and of many niore whom they represent, facts con- 
 nected with the Corn Laws have been disclosed, cir- 
 culated, and firmly impressed upon the public mind, 
 that no subtlety, no selfish fears, no ignorant clamour, 
 can ever hereafter efface or suppress. And if those 
 who have banded themselves together for the aboli- 
 tion of the Corn Laws are not appreciated by their 
 contemporaries for their services in the great cause 
 of Repeal, posterity will, I am quite sure, award them 
 a full measure of justice and gratitude. 
 
 Narrowly and anxiously as I have watched this 
 question for four years past, I can speak with con- 
 fidence of the favourable change that the advocates of 
 Repeal have already effected in public opinion. By 
 the diffusion of information on the subject, for ex- 
 ample, I have seen some of the grossest and most 
 favourite fallacies of the Monopolists completely ex- 
 
MANCHESTER. 239 
 
 ploded. I used to be asked, at first, how I could be 
 really in earnest in wishing for the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws, since I must know that but for the landed 
 interest, neither public loans could be raised nor the 
 interest of the National Debt be paid ; that without 
 the land-owners the manufacturers would have no cus- 
 tomers ; and that the high price of corn was the 
 means of giving employment and high wages to the 
 labourer. I used to reply that all these and such 
 like statements were false, that they were utterly 
 fallacious from beginning to end. But they were 
 readily and persistently swallowed in the House of 
 Commons as soon as uttered until the supporters of 
 Free Trade determined to have a Committee in the 
 House to inquire how far such things were true or 
 not ; and to learn whether the landlords were reall}^ 
 subject to exceptional taxation because they were 
 landlords or whether they were taxed only in the 
 same proportion as other people. This Committee ^ 
 made some noise. It was a Committee appointed to 
 consider the duties that were imposed on articles 
 
 ' The Oommittee on Import Duties here alluded to, was projected to 
 refute Lord Melbourne's speech imputing insanity to any one who pro- 
 posed the abolition of Protection. It owed its oi-igin and success to Mr. 
 Vilhers, though the consent of the Government to it, after being refused 
 to Mr. ViUiers, was not gained tiU the veteran Joseph Hume, at Mr. 
 Villiers's special request, moved for an Inquiry. Mr. Villiers presided at 
 nearly every meeting of this Oommittee, and personally secured the 
 attendance of all the witnesses except two. Sir Charles Douglas sat on 
 it at the express vsdsh of Sir Robert Peel, in order to see ' what these 
 people [the Free Traders] are at, and what they mean by the Inquiry.' 
 After the great change in his policy. Sir Robert Peel declared that the 
 body of evidence adduced before the Oommittee would take the world by 
 surprise, and disclose that a profound misapprehension 'on the subject of 
 Import Duties had prevailed up to that time. 
 
240 FREE TRADE SPEECHES 
 
 imported from other countries ; and, perhaps, you 
 will not think the worse of it because no other 
 Committee has ever given greater offence than it 
 gave to our friends the bread-taxers. 
 
 The first thing that the Committee did was to 
 ascertain how much was collected on the imported 
 articles ; and we found from the officers of the Govern- 
 ment that the sum amounted to upwards of twenty- 
 two millions. We then inquired what these articles 
 were ; because it might still be that they were articles 
 consumed solely by the landlords. Unfortunately 
 for this view of the case, we found that upon ten of 
 the articles in question more than twenty millions 
 were collected, and that they were principally corn, tea, 
 coffee, sugar, tobacco, spirits, wood, wool, fruit, &c. 
 
 Now I believe that occasionally these articles 
 are consumed by other people than landlords ; and 
 you can therefore judge of the justice of a tax upon 
 bread for the benefit of the landlords, because they 
 have to pay the same taxes that other people have to 
 pay. What would you think if all the bakers and 
 butchers claimed an Act of Parliament to make 
 bread and beef dear because there is a tax on tea 
 and sugar, and they, hke the rest of the community, 
 have to pay it? Very convenient, doubtless, for 
 the bakers and butchers if they got it, but a little 
 unjust, I think, to other folks. And yet this is the 
 whole question of the Corn and Provision Laws. 
 The landlords produce bread and beef; and they 
 have passed laws to make them dear, because they, 
 like other people, have to pay taxes. 
 
MANCHESTER. 241 
 
 But they tell you that the manufacturers have no 
 customers like themselves, and that without the Corn 
 Laws they could not buy cotton goods. Well, this 
 famous Committee inquired a little into that too, and 
 we called your worthy Chairman to ask him about it. 
 He soon settled the matter ; for he told us that four- 
 fifths of the cotton manufactured here goes abroad, 
 and that the rest is consumed at home by the com- 
 munity at large. 
 
 However, it was not enough to have only his 
 evidence on the point. He, we knew, was an old 
 oifender ; he had been a friend of Free Trade too 
 long to be generally believed, and, moreover, he was 
 no longer in business. The Conunittee therefore 
 called another witness whose business was entirely 
 in the agricultural districts. He was examined for 
 the special purpose of ascertaining whether the high 
 price of provisions had not given him some rare 
 customers in the country, as the Corn Laws were 
 then in fall operation effecting what they were 
 intended to. He seemed quite startled at the very 
 notion ; and declared that his trade had never been 
 worse, for the very reason that it oiight to have been 
 good. He 'said that it was invariably the case — 
 and he wondered how it could be thought other- 
 wise — that when the labourer paid most for his 
 food, he had least left to pay for his stockings ; and 
 that it was proverbial with all their travellers who 
 went through the country, that when bread was dear 
 they could not get any orders in the agricultural 
 districts. 
 
 VOL. I. II 
 
242 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 This witness was a hosier from Leicester, and he 
 was asked by the landlords to support the Corn Laws 
 because they would ensure him good customers in the 
 country districts. 
 
 But of all absurdities that are now circulated 
 by the advocates of the Corn Laws, the drollest 
 fancy is, that the labourers and artisans wUl be worse 
 off if bread becomes cheaper. Of all the perversions 
 of obvious truth that I have ever heard, this is cer- 
 tainly the most striking. How could bread become 
 cheaper but by becoming more plentiful ? But this, 
 notwithstanding our daily prayers for plenty, would, 
 according to Monopolist logic, be an evil : the Mono- 
 polist argues that plenty would make wages low and 
 that scarcity is the one thing needed to improve the 
 working man's condition. 
 
 Sir W. Molesworth, the Member for Leeds, has 
 agreed to move, as soon as Parliament meets, for 
 another Committee to inquire into this one fact 
 alone, and to ascertain what is the real connection 
 between the rate of wages and the price of food. I 
 am much mistaken if it will not be proved that as 
 provisions rise, wages fall. And if there is any work- 
 ing man here present who has any doubt on the 
 subject, I hope that he will come and give his evi- 
 dence before the Committee. I will answer for it 
 that he shall get a good hearing. 
 
 It is by persevering in this way that we shall 
 succeed at last, and not leave the Monopolists a leg 
 to stand upon. Every one can give us some assist- 
 ance. There is no one too little, too insignificant to 
 
MANCHESTER. 243 
 
 help in the cause. The fable tells us that when the 
 lion got caught m a net, he did not get out by roar- 
 ing, and he could not get out by himself. It was 
 the smallest animal in the forest that released him. 
 By constantly nibbling away at the net the little 
 mouse at last made a hole big enough for the lion to 
 get out. And it is on this prmciple that year after 
 year I go on nibbling away — though the task is 
 no pleasant one, I can assure you — hoping each time 
 to make the hole in the horrid net of Monopoly 
 a little bigger, until at last the British Lion shall 
 be free. 
 
 I find nothing around me to induce despair. In 
 fact I find in the utterances of various men which 
 reach me from time to time, much to encourage me. 
 The other day I heard a Cabinet Minister lamenting 
 the injustice and folly of making a free people pay 
 40 per cent, more for their food than they need do 
 in order to support a Monopoly. Nothing could be 
 more just than what he said ; only, unfortunately, 
 when he said it, he was talking of Jamaica and 
 the negroes, and not of England and her people. 
 But as I cannot of course suppose that this Minister 
 cares more for an African than for an Englishman, 
 I expect that when I bring on my Motion for 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws he will express the 
 same indignation at Englishmen's paying 40 per cent. 
 more than they ought for their food, as he did at 
 the inj ustice imposed on the negroes of Jamaica. 
 
 I was also, I confess, much pleased to hear the 
 Noble Lord who leads the House of Commons de- 
 
 E 2 
 
244 FEES TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 nounce very distinctly, the night before Parliament 
 broke up, the pernicious system of class legislation. 
 All of us m this room, I believe, condemn that 
 system. I, for one, will support any Minister, be 
 he Whig, Tory, or Radical, who denounces it and 
 who is ready to act against it. And the people, if 
 they know their own interests, will give such a 
 Minister fall power to abolish it. 
 
 The Com Laws are a great and flagrant deviation 
 from the principle of legislating for the general good, 
 and not for the particular interest. They are the 
 corner-stone of Monopoly in this country. I am 
 certain that if they were abolished a host of minor 
 evils would speedUy disappear. But whUst they 
 remain, Monopoly and its attendant mischief can 
 never be removed. 
 
 I think that the present moment is most oppor- 
 tune for the display of our determination to procure 
 justice for the country, and alleviation of the distress 
 in the manufacturing districts which has so long been 
 shocking the feelings of every well-disposed man. I 
 cannot but hope that many will now give their 
 support to the cause who have hitherto held aloof 
 from it. And here I would allude specially to 
 the ministers of religion. For I cannot conceive 
 anything more immediately within the province of 
 the disciples of Him who said ' Feed my people,' 
 and ' the labourer is worthy of his hire,' than to in- 
 culcate their Master's great lessons of charity by en- 
 abling the poor, through honest industry, to feed 
 themselves, 
 
MANCHESTER. 245 
 
 Moreover, I think that it would be only wise in 
 those who hold that no redress can be obtained till 
 the suffrage is extended, to aid us in showing the 
 community the frightful evUs of the Corn Laws which 
 were passed, and are maintained, under the present 
 limited constituencies. For surely they must see that 
 the chief reason they have for demanding the Charter 
 is that there is no chance of obtaining the abolition 
 of such Laws until the power of the people is increased. 
 But if they sanction the notion that they approve of 
 these Laws, what reason have they for urging the 
 reform of Parliament ? 
 
 Whatever other men may do, it becomes those who 
 have leagued themselves together for the good and 
 great purpose of procuring the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws, to endeavour by every legitimate means in then- 
 power to convince the community of the truth that 
 no more effectual means of promoting the well-being 
 of the industrious masses, of adding to the wealth of 
 the country and of preserving the peace of the world 
 can exist, than a free and unrestricted commercial 
 intercourse between nation and nation throughout the 
 globe. 
 
246 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 VIII, 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 7, 1841. 
 
 The Budget of 1841 showed a deficiency of nearly two millions. To meet 
 this the Government resolved on wliat was considered the bold stroke 
 of attacking the Corn, Sugar, and Timber Monopolies. Accordingly ou 
 April 30, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial state- 
 ment, Lord J. Russell, who before had vehemently resisted all proposals 
 for repealing the Corn Laws as impracticable and mischievous, gave 
 notice that on May 30 he should move for a Committee of the whole House 
 to consider the Laws affecting the importation of foreign corn. This 
 notice of a Motion, identical with that hitherto brought forward by Mr. 
 Villiers in face of strenuous opposition, coming from Lord Melbourne's 
 Ministry, took the House completely by surprise : the annual estimates 
 and proposed alterations in the Sugar and Timber Duties were almost lost 
 sight of in the all-absorbing topic of corn, and the debate on the Budget 
 became simply a discussion of the Corn Laws. Agitation on the ques- 
 tion throughout the country increased greatly. Lord J. Russell found it 
 necessary not to delay the announcement of the terms of his Motion 
 till the date originally fixed ; and on May 7 he stated his intention of 
 proposing a fixed duty of eight shillings. Sir R. Peel declared strongly 
 in favour of a Sliding Scale ; but Lord Palmerston, who only two years 
 previously had voted against Mr. Tilliers's Motion to hear the members of 
 the Manchester Association at the Bar of the House, showed himself con- 
 vinced of the soundness of Free Trade principles, and spoke admirably 
 against Protection. The Government were beaten on the Sugar Duties ; 
 and on June 4, before the corn question could be brought on, Sir R. Peel 
 carried a vote of want of confidence by a majority of one. On June 7, 
 Lord J. Russell announced the intention of the Government to dissolve 
 Parliament, and to appeal to the country as soon as they had taken a 
 Vote of Supply for the immediate requirements of the public service. 
 
 As the Noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies 
 and the Right Hon. Baronet have stated what they 
 call their view of the position of parties, and the 
 course they intend to take, and as Members seem to 
 consider that aU real business is over, I hope that I 
 
HOUSE OP COMMONS. 247 
 
 may make one or two observations upon the ques- 
 tion that has caused this position of parties and upon 
 which they are now about to disturb the peace of the 
 country. 
 
 If I did not know what grave considerations this 
 question involves, how closely connected it is with the 
 misery of many of our fellow-creatures, I could really 
 find matter for amusement in the predicament in 
 which I see some around me placed by it. 
 
 It has been made matter of reproach that the 
 demand for a total repeal of the Corn Laws is extra- 
 vagant ; and those who have leagued themselves 
 together, out of the House, to instruct the people on 
 the matter are told that they are too violent ; that 
 they should be more moderate ; that they should leave 
 it to the Government to bring it forward. Let the 
 Grovernment take it up, say some, and the landed 
 interest will then consider it gravely ; they will enter 
 into it calmly ; they will admit of some mitigation of 
 the Laws, and settle the question. 
 
 Xow I invite the attention of the country and of 
 the House to the present position of the matter. The 
 question was taken out of my hands by the Govern- 
 ment ; and I surrendered it with satisfaction, hoping 
 that good might follow. They have proposed a 
 measure ; a moderate, a fair measure as some call 
 it ; a measure extravagantly in favour of the landed 
 interest as I consider it. How are they treated? 
 Why, worse than I have been ! I have been allowed 
 to have my say ; I have been allowed to bring on my 
 Motion ; but the Noble Lord has not even been 
 
248 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 allowed to bring on his. He gave his Notice, an- 
 nounced the nature of his measure, and fulfilled 
 every condition that I was told last year would secure 
 serious attention to the subject, when down conies the 
 Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and in the face of the 
 Noble Lord's Notice carries by a majority of persons 
 whose interests are supposed to be involved in it, a 
 Resolution that has the eifect of precluding the Noble 
 Lord from bringing forward his measure, of preventing 
 a deliberate consideration of the subject, and, in fine, 
 of enabling themselves to escape from a division. 
 
 This, then, is the position of the question : the 
 land-owners form the majority of the House ; they 
 will not allow the Laws that give them a Monopoly 
 to be altered ; and they will not allow them to be 
 fairly discussed. 
 
 The question is now seriously engaging the 
 attention of every State in Europe and the United 
 States of America. Their interests are all involved 
 in it. They see and understand the struggle. They 
 know the parties engaged in the conflict : those who 
 profit by a Monopoly of the subsistence of the people 
 on the one side, and the advocates of unrestricted 
 commerce with the rest of the world on the other. 
 And this week presents them with a scene in the battle 
 Uttle creditable to the country, though doubtless a 
 triumph for Monopoly : namely, a deliberate refusal on 
 the part of the land-owners to allow the question to 
 ',j^ fuirly debated. This House represents only their 
 interests, and they can do what they like with their 
 own, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 249 
 
 I referred the other night to the close analogy 
 that exists between the Slave question in America 
 and the Corn Laws of England ; that resemblance is 
 now strengthened. In America they refuse to dis- 
 cuss the Slave question in Congress. Two years ago 
 it was mooted and the Members all rushed from the 
 House as they rushed from this House to-night. 
 The subject of slavery is offensive to the interests 
 of the majority in Congress as the Corn Laws 
 are offensive to both Houses here, and all refuse to 
 discuss it. 
 
 Does this discourage me? Far from it. Do I 
 advise the country to be disheartened by it? Quite 
 the contrary. Xo cause in the name of freedom has 
 ever fared better at first. I am glad, indeed, that 
 this course has been pursued. People in this country 
 hate unfahness above everything, and this will rouse 
 them. They will now see the relative strength of their 
 friends and their enemies ; and tbey wUl see the neces- 
 sity for acting with energy. 
 
 Moreover, I like the course taken by the opposite 
 side on this account : it is bold and daring, and 
 intelligible to aU. I far prefer it to the trimming 
 course pursued before. It is not a delusive course, 
 which it might have been. It bids defiance to the 
 people. It will compel the people to meet it. 
 
 I am satisfied that there is no ground whatever 
 in justice for any tax on the people's food. Had the 
 Grovernment Measure been adopted, or spoiled by the 
 landlords, the question of total Repeal would hardly 
 have had fair play. 
 
250 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 That question is now again fully before the 
 country, and I defy any man to show that the people 
 are not entitled to this full measure of justice. They 
 bear the burdens of the country, and none I contend 
 are borne exclusively by the landlords. I rejoice 
 that the question has been agitated in the country 
 upon this broad, intelligible basis, and that the people 
 have put the landlords to the proof of their claim to a 
 permanent tax upon the bread of the community. 
 
 As I have said before, I see nothing in what is 
 occurring at present that does not raise my most san- 
 guine expectations of speedy success. The question 
 must now exclusively engage the attention of the House 
 till it is settled in some way. Constant reference will 
 be made to it in all the business of the next Parliament, 
 and I predict another speedy dissolution, upon the 
 same ground, of the Parliament about to be elected. 
 The question never can be smothered up again ; and 
 I firmly expect that in the end these iniquitous Laws 
 wiU be totally repealed. 
 
 I believe that the country would have supported 
 the Noble Lord had he on this occasion disregarded 
 the usual form and, in spite of the Resolution carried, 
 brought in his measure. The country understands 
 the Noble Lord's position. The Noble Lord had 
 given his Notice, had fixed his day ; his measure was 
 offensive to the majority in the House ; they inter- 
 posed a Resolution declaring that he had not their 
 confidence, which they carried, and threatened even 
 further interference. I hoped that anything so un- 
 fair, so unusual, might have been disregarded by the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 251 
 
 Government ; but I am told that in point of form the 
 Noble Lord was precluded from bringing on his Motion, 
 and that he could not have had a fair discussion if 
 he had been opposed in doing so. 
 
 I think, however, that this matters little : the 
 people understand the question now ; and the whole 
 proceeding will mark clearly in what way they ought 
 to act in justice to themselves and with regard to the 
 interest of the country in its present deep distress. 
 
252 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 IX. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 27, 1841. 
 
 The Government candidates went to the country in 1841 with Lord 
 J. Eussell's fixed duty as their election cry. Sir R. Peel admitted at 
 Tamworth the prevailing deep distress, but declared his firm conviction 
 that it was not in any way due to the Corn Laws, and was returned to 
 maintain the existing Sliding Scale. Parliament met on August 19. The 
 Queen's Speech dwelt on the suffering and poverty of the people, and ex- 
 plicitly stated that it was not only necessary for the Legislature to con- 
 sider the Corn Laws, but also to determine whether they were not the 
 direct cause of the distress of the great body of the community. Lord 
 liipon, in the House of Lords, carried a vote of want of confidence in the 
 Ministry as an amendment to the Address. And in the House of Commons 
 a similar Motion was carried on August 27, after four nights' debate. Mr. 
 Cobden, who had just been retui'ned to Parliament for the first time, spoke 
 during the debate, and made a powerful impression on the House in 
 his maiden speech, in which he acknowledged Mr. Tilliers's ' great and 
 incessant services ' in the cause of the people. 
 
 Having often had occasion to address the House on 
 the subject that has been recommended to its con- 
 sideration ill the Speech from the Throne, I "have 
 listened with great care during the present debate to 
 the things that have been uttered on the other side ia 
 order to be saved, if possible, the trouble of repeat- 
 ing my former observations. For this reason I have 
 given my best attention to those who have not ob- 
 served the rule of sUence prescribed to the party, 
 and who undertook to explain the question to which 
 as they said they were confined on this occasion. 
 
 I must confess, however, that they have failed 
 to enlighten me. My Hon. Friend the Member for 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 253 
 
 Winchester wonders indeed how any one now dares to 
 speak on this subject ; in short how any one can 
 have the courage, in the face of the law and the Con- 
 stitution, to discuss any other siibject than that which 
 he considers to be the subject before the House. 
 
 It seems to me that my Hon. Friend, whose skUl 
 in confusing juries I have often witnessed, was not 
 less successful on this occasion in confusing himself 
 and the subject of debate ; for with every wish to 
 understand what he meant I failed to do so. 
 
 Another Hon. Member thinks that questions 
 respecting the sufferings of the people are abstract 
 questions and little in place at this time ; and so 
 on with several other Members who all upon some 
 ground or other seek to justify themselves in avoid- 
 ing the questions really proposed to them ; but I own 
 that I see as little in their reasons as m their silence 
 to make the House think that this is not a fitting 
 moment to discuss matters so deeply interesting to 
 the people. 
 
 I do not mean to say anything offensive to Hon. 
 Members on the other side, but I cannot help think- 
 ing that there is a way of accounting for their present 
 silence considering the activity that they have lately 
 displayed in giving circulation to every fallacy, in 
 giving currency to every misrepresentation of the 
 principles and objects of the Government measures. 
 
 I cannot but think that Hon. Members are some- 
 what ashamed of the means by which they obtained 
 their seats, and that coming face to face with those 
 whose policy and whose principles they have assailed 
 
254 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 SO unscrupulously, they think it the most prudent 
 course to maintain a perfect silence. There is doubt- 
 less some discretion shown in not committing them- 
 selves to opinions ; but the same discretion unfortu- 
 nately was not observed elsewhere : allusion here, how- 
 ever, to the distresses of commerce or to the miseries 
 of the people might check the ducal influence that 
 arrogates to itself the power of making Ministers, as 
 grandees of old in this country assumed the autho- 
 rity of making monarchs. On the other hand the 
 repetition at this moment of reasons for keeping the 
 people iu their misery and preserving the tax on their 
 subsistence, might have startled and disgusted the 
 country in a manner not easily recovered ; and this 
 perhaps has rendered silence a very prudent course. 
 
 Nevertheless in the performance of my duty, and 
 of my promise to those who sent me here, I can- 
 not forego the opportunity of discussing the vitally- 
 interesting matters that the Crown has proposed for 
 the consideration of the House. I will not be a 
 party to wanton and marked disrespect shown to the 
 Throne, in order to avoid the subject that above all 
 others most nearly concerns the welfare of the people. 
 Concurring fully in the principles on which the 
 financial arrangements of this year are proposed, and 
 believing that if those principles were carried further 
 they would be attended with unqualified advantage 
 to the country, I shall resist by every means in my 
 power the opposite policy which I consider to be 
 identified with the Amendment. For I cannot shut 
 my eyes to the notorious opinions of the Hon. Member 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 255 
 
 who moved tlie Amendment : opinions so earnestly 
 expressed by liim in the important district that he 
 represents ; opinions by which he so largely profits ; 
 and which cannot now be suppressed by any vague 
 profession of attachment to the principles of Free 
 Trade or any shabby reference to the opinions of the 
 late Mr. Huskisson. 
 
 Considering the real opinions of the Hon. Member 
 I cannot but think him well qualified to represent the 
 party and the policy directly opposed to the policy 
 recently professed by Her Majesty's Government. I 
 consider that the Amendment places m issue the great 
 questions that now divide this country, and for decid- 
 ing which it is generally thought that Parliament has 
 been called together. 
 
 The time is now come that I have much desired to 
 see and that abler men have long expected : now, at 
 last, when the principles by which the trade and taxa- 
 tion of the country should be regulated, absorb the 
 consideration of the public mind. The case is now 
 ripe for hearing. The parties concerned in it have 
 been ascertained. On the one side is the community, 
 on the other the aristocracy and protected mterests. 
 The plea is the general interest ; and the answer is 
 vested interests and existing monopolies. 
 
 It becomes the House to elicit by every means all 
 the evidence that can prepare it for a judgment. I 
 am satisfied that the country at large will view with 
 impatience the attempt that has been made to draw 
 their attention away to the mere vulgar topics of 
 party. This story of party is a short one here, and 
 
256 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 soon told. Hon. Gentlemen opposite represent the 
 aristocracy and protected interests ; and they have 
 achieved a victory over those who represent the 
 general interests. How this great party fell from 
 power is a question that might receive diiFerent 
 answers. I certainly am disposed to think that the 
 chief cause is to be found in the dissension existing in 
 it. I believe that the Opposition obtained a majority 
 because one section of the popular party made use 
 of it for the purpose of chastising the other. The 
 fruits of this strange confusion of parties has been 
 seen. Supporters of the aristocracy and of Monopoly 
 work their way into the House by appearing as the 
 friends of the Chartist and the pauper, and they 
 adopt against the Government the language of those 
 who are discontented with its moderation. The 
 reproaches of broken faith and unfulfilled pledges, 
 indulged in by the Hon. Member for Yorkshire and 
 others, are borrowed from the speeches of those whose 
 hostility to the Government arises from its not going 
 far enough. With such discordant allies the party 
 opposite are coming into power not upon the principles 
 that they themselves maintain but upon the errors of 
 their opponents. 
 
 Hon. Gentlemen opposite listened with great 
 attention to what the Hon. Member for Bath told 
 them : he said that the grounds for condemning the 
 Government are matter for Radical anger, and not for 
 Conservative complaint. The Government has doubt- 
 less ceased to be popular. I myself am disposed to 
 agree with much of what the Hon. Member for Bath 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 257 
 
 said. I think that the Government has rather shrunk 
 from the principles that placed them in power. They 
 have been too miich disposed to favour those who are 
 more inclined to abandon than to advance their prin- 
 ciples. But I must in common candour say that 
 they have suffered as much for doing what would 
 by many be thought right, as for doing what was 
 wrong. 
 
 There are two points ia their policy that have 
 weakened their popularity. I mean -their policy 
 towards Ireland and their advocacy of the new Poor 
 Law. I think that my Hon. and Learned Friend 
 the Member for Cork ^ greatly exaggerates the pre- 
 judice that exists ia this country against Ireland. 
 I believe it to be less than my Hon. and Learned 
 Friend represents, though it is impossible to deny 
 that there does exist a great and unreasonable preju- 
 dice against Ireland. I do not know anything more 
 unworthy or discreditable than this prejudice due I 
 believe to that perverse principle of our nature which 
 leads us to hate those whom we have injured. It 
 exists in almost every class ; but I trust that it is 
 diminishing every day. Many people in this country 
 view with satisfaction the accession of the Noble 
 Lord the Member for North Lancashire to power 
 because they think he will put down the Irish. The 
 impression is that the Noble Lord is very hostile to 
 the Irish. [' No, no.'] I only say what the impres- 
 sion is, and I hope that the Noble Lord will falsify it 
 when he comes into power ; but it does exist, and it is 
 
 ' Mr, O'ConneU, 
 VOL. I. S 
 
258 PHEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 undoubtedly a source of sucli popularity as attaches 
 to his accession to office. 
 
 With regard to the new Poor Law, no one can 
 deny that the Government have lost a great deal of 
 popularity by their advocacy of that law. Their loss 
 on account of it is proverbial ; and yet they have no 
 possible interest or motive in the advocacy but the 
 improvement to which in their belief it will lead. I 
 firmly believe that it is a great improvement on the 
 old law, and if it had not been misrepresented the 
 people would see this themselves. In these matters 
 it is quite clear that unpopularity has been acquired 
 by the Government by the honesty of their pohcy. 
 
 I believe also that the Noble Lord the Secretary 
 for the Colonies has suffered from incautious expres- 
 sions made use of with respect to the Eeform Bill. I 
 always thought that a great deal more had been made 
 of those expressions than there was any occasion for. 
 The honest and candid construction of the Noble 
 Lord's language is, in my opinion, that the Noble 
 Lord, being somewhat timid after the confusion that 
 he and his colleagues caused by passing the Reform 
 BUI, was needlessly alarmed at the consequences of 
 carrying out their principles. Having no reason to 
 suspect the intelligence or integrity of the Noble 
 Lord, I cannot believe that in announcing the prin- 
 ciple that the people ought to be fully and fairly repre- 
 sented and that the system of nomination ought to 
 cease, he could have considered that the Reform 
 Bill was a complete and final development of that 
 principle. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 259 
 
 It is very well for those who object to all 
 change, and who think that the old corrupt system 
 ought not to have been disturbed, to oppose every- 
 thing like farther reform. But I cannot believe that a 
 Government who have caused such turmoil in the 
 country as Lord Grey's Government have done in 
 proclaiming the principle that the people should be 
 duly represented, could have intended no more com- 
 plete fulfilment of their principles than is contained in 
 the Reform Bill. Saying this, however, is a source 
 of unpopularity. I am disposed to overlook much 
 of what the popular party condemn in the Noble 
 Lord, in consequence of the manner in which he has 
 taken up the great principles of commercial reform. 
 
 I am bound to say that I believe that the Noble 
 Lord has acted entirely from honest conviction in 
 everything that he has said and done respecting the 
 alteration of the Corn Laws. It is perfectly false that 
 anything that happened in this House influenced the 
 Noble Lord's determination to alter the Corn Laws. 
 The determination was taken before the occurrence 
 of those decisions that are said to have led to it. 
 But probably there is no use in repeating this state- 
 ment because appearances are against it. The pre- 
 sumption is that the decisions I refer to did influence 
 the Government because their measures of commercial 
 reform were not proposed beforehand. 
 
 However, I repeat, and I have no object but the 
 truth in making the assertion, indeed there could be 
 hardly any other reason for my sayu:ig anything in 
 behalf of a Government about to go out, and I am 
 
260 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 certain that I am not under any obligation to any 
 member of it — I repeat, bowever, knowing bim to 
 have been most unjustly accused, tbattbe Noble Lord 
 could have had no motive in bringing forward the 
 measures that he submitted to the House, other than 
 a conviction of the evil of the present Laws and a firm 
 persuasion that no man ought to continue a Minister 
 without proposing their amendment or repeal. 
 
 The Opposition are now coming into power ; and 
 it is impossible to be blind to the fact that they are 
 coming in on principles directly antagonistic to the 
 principles of commercial freedom and unfettered in- 
 dustry. In the present alarming condition of the 
 country — with commerce paralyzed, capital unem- 
 ployed, millions of industrious poor in the lowest 
 state of depression, the Opposition are coming into 
 power with a distinct purpose of maintaining the 
 destructive system of commercial legislation that at 
 present prevails. I have lately had submitted to me 
 detailed proofs that the existing distress is of the 
 most frightful nature ; and in compliance with the 
 request of those who represent the sufferers, I shall 
 call the attention of the House to the nature of those 
 proofs. I hold in my hand evidence not referring 
 to isolated cases leading, as the Right Hon. Baronet 
 opposite has said, to no general conclusions, but 
 such as establish in the clearest manner the evUs 
 that result from the Corn Laws. I have evidence of 
 distress from numerous and widely- separated districts, 
 and referring to people engaged in every department 
 of trade. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 261 
 
 Hon. Members opposite are not disposed to re- 
 ceive very favourably anything that comes from those 
 clergymen who lately assembled at Manchester.^ But 
 it should be recollected that they were delegated by 
 then- congregations, including many of our fellow- 
 subjects who are now suffering and who requested 
 those gentlemen to go in their behalf to a spot where 
 they knew the subject of their condition would 
 receive attention. On their authority this evidence 
 was collected, and the names and addresses of the 
 parties who gave and collected it are given in each 
 case so that any one can test its correctness. And 
 the evidence referring to all these different depart- 
 ments of trade comes from the following places : — 
 
 Harchuare (Nos. 1, 2). — Walsall, West Bromwicli, Darlaston, 
 Willenhall, Wednesbury, Tipton, and Oldbury. Hardtvare (No. 
 3.) — Dudley. Nail making. — Belper and Forfar, N.B. Herring 
 Fishery. — Caithness, N.B. Silk. — Coventry, Macclesfield, 
 Middleton, Derby, West Houghton, Spitalfields, and Bethnal 
 Green. Woolle7is. — Leeds, Huddersfield, Golcar, Lockwood, 
 Eochdale, Bradford, Thornton with Denholme, Sowerby Bridge, 
 Haworth, Wilsden, AUerton, North Owram, Middlesbro', Ossett, 
 Martin Top near Gisborne, Eadcliffe, Dursley, Stroud, Stone- 
 house, Wotton-under-Edge, Westbury, Bradford, Frome, Shepton 
 Mallet, and Trowbridge. Cutlery. — Sheffield. Carpet Weaving. 
 — Barnard Castle. Hat Making. — Denton. Shoe Making. — 
 Daventry and Stone. Hosiery and Lace. — Nottingham, Mans- 
 field, Sutton in Ashfield, New Basford, Beeston, Hyson Green, 
 Leicester, Hinckley, Lutterworth, Loughborough, Earl Shelton, 
 Arnsley, Ullathorpe, Oadby, Ilkeston, Belper, Melbourne, and 
 
 ' The National Conference of the Ministers of all denominations on 
 the Corn Laws, which was most violently assailed hy the Times, assembled 
 in the Town Hall, Manchester, on August 17. The Conference lasted 
 three days, and was attended by over 700 Ministers of different denomi- 
 nations. 
 
262 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Tewkesbury. Glove Making. — Hexham (Northumberland), 
 Worcester, and Yeovil, Somerset. Agriculture. — Beds : Leigh- 
 ton Buzzard. Bucks : Amersham, High Wycombe, Newport 
 Pagnell, Olney, and Stoney Stratford. Berks : Beading 
 and vicinity. Camb. : Bassingboum. Cheshire : Knutsford. 
 Devon : Exeter, Bideford, Witheridge, and Great Torrington. 
 Shipping. — Liverpool, Bristol, Hull, Bridport, Whitehaven, and 
 Falmouth. Cotton. — Manchester, Bolton, Preston, Carlisle, 
 Kendal, Bury, Heywood, Wigram, Stockport, &c. Mining. — ■ 
 Forest of Dean, Pontypool, Talywaen, Ehymney, Sirhowy, Aber- 
 sychan, Llanelly, and Mnyddyshoyn district. 
 
 I will not venture to weary the House at this 
 time with the detailed contents of these documents, 
 but I will read from one of them what I may term a 
 specimen of the evidence they afford of the condition 
 of the people ; it refers to the Preston Union, and is 
 as follows : — 
 
 Population, 51,072. Inhabited houses, 8,974 ; uninhabited, 
 1 ,017. The Poor Bate has regularly increased from 1836 ; it was 
 then 4,725Z., it is now 7,2991. It would have been much heavier 
 but for the large voluntary subscriptions which have been raised. 
 The reports of the dispensary show that in 1886, 1,911 persons 
 were medically relieved ; in 1840, 3,072. Deaths in the Preston 
 union: 1838, 1,269; 1839, 1,277; 1840, 1,739 -an increase in 
 1840 of 462 over the preceding year. This extraordinary increase 
 in the number of deaths excited the attention of the Kegistrar- 
 General, who wrote to the clerk of the miion to inquire the 
 cause. The following is an extract from the reply : ' The cause 
 is, in a very great measure, insufficiency of food of a good quality, 
 which has tended to engender death among the labourmg class, 
 who have been exposed to high prices for provisions (and those 
 of an inferior kind), whilst in the receipt of decreasing wages. — 
 Joseph Thackebay.' Many suffer their great privations with 
 much patience ; others are discontented and sullen. Many give 
 up all in despair, whilst not a few are confident that open rup- 
 ture can alone relieve them. A very great indifference is felt 
 towards constitutional efforts, such as petitions, &c., for the relief 
 of their distress. Many of the hand-loom weavers live almost 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 263 
 
 entirely on water-porridge, and are distressingly destitute of clothes 
 and bedding. 
 
 Now the people firmly believe, and, in my opinion, 
 j ustly too, tliat the frightful mass of misery exhibited 
 in this evidence is entirely owing to the restrictions 
 that Parliament imposes on their industry and on their 
 commerce with other countries. A state of things 
 has now arrived that has long been expected and 
 that the ablest men who have studied the subject 
 have always foreseen would arise when the population 
 of this country exceeded its means of subsistence. 
 We have become dependent on other countries dif- 
 ferently circumstanced, for a supply of food. There 
 is nothing unnatural m this when we have a popula- 
 tion increasmg at the rate of one thousand a day ; 
 and the time is at hand when this state of things 
 will be universally acknowledged to have arrived. 
 
 I am not one who is anxious to bring before you 
 distinct cases of suffering for the purpose of your 
 legislating upon them ; this I know would be use- 
 less. But it is generally alleged and believed that 
 the distress is occasioned by the operation of the Corn 
 Laws. These Laws jou passed, and these Laws you 
 can repeal. When such an opinion is well founded, 
 and when such a general feeling prevails, you are 
 called upon to repeal them. And therefore it is that 
 I have heard with the greatest sorrow the opinions 
 that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite and the JSToble 
 Lord have expressed upon this subject. 
 
 I am sorry to see the Right Hon. Baronet labour- 
 ing in his public address to justify those who would 
 
264 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 maiiitaiii the Laws as they are rather than encourag- 
 ing them to prepare for their immediate change. 
 Certainly I expected, and my expectation was formed 
 from what tlie Right Hon. Baronet said in this 
 House, that when he came into power he would use 
 the influence he possesses over the party to which 
 he belongs to induce them to change the opinion 
 they hold with respect to the Corn Laws ; but now 
 that the Right Hon. Baronet is on the eve of coming 
 into power I see by his speech at Tamworth that 
 he has only exercised his ingenuity and talent in- 
 efforts to show that there are other causes than the 
 Corn Laws for the prevailing distress. In thus act- 
 ing the Right Hon. Baronet helps to confirm the 
 hostility existing in the minds of the advocates of 
 those Laws to any modification of them. 
 
 When the Right Hon. Baronet was speaking at 
 Tamworth he was, it must be remembered, address- 
 ing the nation. Now, when he said that the Corn 
 Laws are not chargeable with the present distress, that 
 they are not the cause of it, I am sure that the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman could not deny that those Laws 
 have something to do with the derangement of the 
 Currency ; he could not deny that they have produced 
 a scarcity of money, which necessarHy had to be ex- 
 ported ; he could not deny that there has been a 
 scarcity of food during the last three years ; and 
 surely every man's means must be diminished when 
 he has to sacrifice more of those means for the purpose 
 of procuring food : each one must inevitably suffer if 
 he has to pay a higher price for food than he was 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 265 
 
 previously in the habit of paymg for it. What, then, 
 does the Right Hon. Baronet mean by saying that the 
 Corn Laws have nothing to do with the distress ? Is 
 it that high price for food is not an evil ; that it is no 
 evil to see bullion going out of the country ; to find 
 credit contracted, and the Bank distressed ? And 
 yet all these evils follow from them ! 
 
 I do not mean to say that the Right Hon. 
 Baronet made statements to this effect ; but these 
 are the legitimate consequences of his position. 
 When, therefore, he declared that the Corn Laws are 
 not a cause of the present distress, he said what it 
 is difficult to comprehend, and impossible to assent 
 to. How any person of intelligence could come to 
 such a conclusion I cannot understand. 
 
 Let us, for example, see how the Laws affect the 
 Agricultural class. It is calculated there are about 
 a million families employed m this country in Agri- 
 culture, and it has been further calculated that 
 each famUy receives at least 30^. a year. If there 
 are a million agricultural labourers, then there are 
 30,000,000/. to be expended in some way or other. 
 iSlow it was found in the evidence before the Com- 
 mittee which has been already referred to in this debate, 
 that when wheat was 57.5. a quarter, the class of 
 persons described had to pay 7s. Qd. out of their 
 week's wages for bread and flour ; but when we 
 know that, as in 1839 and 1840, the average price 
 of wheat in this country is 70s. a quarter, what, I 
 ask, do you think can be left to a man after paying 
 for his bread out of his 10s. or 12s. a week when, 
 
266 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 with the quarter of wheat at not more than 56.5;., he 
 paid 7s. 6d. a week ? What is left to him to pay for 
 clothing and household requirements after expending 
 so much LQ provisions? Surely the manufacturing 
 interest in this case must feel the loss of their share of 
 the thirty millions. And what in fact do we hear from 
 Leicester and other places — the people of Leicester 
 produce coarse goods principally for the use of the 
 agricultural labourers ? Is it not that they received no 
 orders during those years for these articles because the 
 people had to expend all their wages in food? The 
 consequence is that in Leicester, where a large popula- 
 tion is supported principally by manufacturing for the 
 agricultural labourers, the people now have no demand 
 for their labour, they are thrown out of work, and 
 14,000 are at present depending on the parish for 
 support. 
 
 And yet with these facts before us we hear that 
 the high price of food is of more advantage to the 
 labourer than otherwise ; or that it is no evil ; or 
 that it makes no difference to him whether or not we 
 have Corn Laws ! 
 
 I complain of the speech of the Right Hon. 
 Baronet ; but I complain still more of the speech 
 of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire.^ 
 In the Right Hon. Baronet's speech it was not 
 asserted that the Corn Laws are a positive good ; 
 the Right Hon. Baronet confined himself to the 
 assertion or argument that they do not produce 
 
 ' The late Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 267 
 
 distress. But the N"oble Lord the Member for Lan- 
 cashire, in addressing the agricultural labourers, 
 attempts to show that the high price of provisions is 
 an advantage. I can scarcely believe that a man of 
 common sense could honestly believe this to be the 
 case — certainly no man of superior attainments could ; 
 because of all the delusions that have ever been un- 
 posed upon human credulity this is the greatest. 
 How could any man of intellect and common honesty 
 attempt to persuade a poor creature that the less food 
 there is in the country the better it is for him ; that 
 in short the more scarce provisions are the more he 
 will get? There is nothing in witchcraft, nothing in 
 cajolery on a large scale, nothing that I have ever 
 heard in the history of successful delusions practised 
 upon the mmds of ignorant men, equal to it. We 
 know how those who say these things come to suc- 
 ceed. It is by using vague terms, by telling the 
 poor that their wages will fall — the people believe 
 that if wages fell their condition would be worse ; and 
 then they clench their argument, if argument it can 
 be called, by assuring the people of the cruelty of 
 their employers. 
 
 The iS^oble Lord the Member for North Lanca- 
 shire selected Lancashire as the proper place to set 
 the men against their masters ; to tell them that it is 
 cruelty that makes their masters Free Traders and 
 anxious to promote the doctrines of Free Trade ; 
 that Free Trade will ruin them and deprive them of 
 their comforts ; and that these Free Trade masters 
 
268 PKEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 will take them from the occupations they like, and 
 transfer them to others for which they are unsuited. 
 
 But the Noble Lord went further and tried to per- 
 suade the people of that which I did not think it 
 possible for any one to revive now : he tried to per- 
 suade them of the stale and exploded fallacy that 
 was formerly used with regard to War taxation. He 
 vised the same fallacy with respect to rents that had 
 formerly been employed with regard to the taxes ; he 
 said that the higher the rents were the more men were 
 employed. That is the old doctrine that was started 
 by Mr. Vansittart when he said of the taxes, that 
 they come back to the country in ' refreshing showers,' 
 and that the more the people are taxed the more the 
 Government gives them employment. The Noble 
 Lord stated of the landlords that it would be highly 
 dangerous to reduce their rents because if their rents 
 were reduced they could not keep so many grooms and 
 gardeners ; that now they employ the gardeners to 
 watch their jDleasure-grounds ; but that if the Corn 
 Laws were repealed, then the landlords would be 
 obliged to reduce their expenditure, and to suit it to 
 their narrowed means. This is the way in which he 
 attempted to prove that great evil would follow from 
 a change in the Corn Laws ! The grooms and 
 gardeners are to be well employed ! But, surely, the 
 weavers and the stocking-makers are human beings 
 also, and not less worthy of consideration ! I think 
 that it is just as essential for them to be supported as 
 the grooms and gardeners. I should like to know 
 what the Noble Lord would have said if a weaver had 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 269 
 
 risen and asked him what he would do if a machine 
 were invented for makiag clothes cheaper than they 
 are at present ; what he, who has such tenderness for 
 grooms and gardeners, would do with respect to 
 new inventions that injure the unfortunate artisan. 
 Would he not scout the idea of taxmg or sup- 
 pressmg machinery ? And yet I do not know why 
 there should be more sympathy displayed for grooms 
 and gardeners because the landlords might have lower 
 rents, than for the weaver whose employment is super- 
 seded by the use of new machinery. 
 
 The Noble Lord said that land must be culti- 
 vated and high rents kept up, for the purpose of 
 employing labour ; but the same argument might be 
 used to keep up any existing trade or occupation. 
 If the Noble Lord were to advocate a new line of rail- 
 road, and the people in business who occupied the 
 houses on an old line of road, told him that they 
 would be ruined by being deprived of their occupa- 
 tion and advantage, that would unquestionably be a 
 stronger case than that of the grooms and gardeners ; 
 and yet who would entertain it ? 
 
 But the Noble Lord spoke of the main principle of 
 his policy being Protection. The Noble Lord ought 
 distinctly to announce to the country what he means 
 by Protection because he declared himself to be a 
 disciple of Mr. Huskisson. It is said that he was the 
 colleague of that gentleman, and he announced himself 
 as clothed with his mantle. Now Mr. Huskisson, 
 like other people in office, said a great deal to square 
 his opinions with existing circumstances ; but still 
 
270 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 througliout the course that he followed, it will be 
 found that he never upheld the principle of Protection 
 as opposed to the principle of Free Trade. It is not 
 for Protectionists to state that Mr. Huskisson did so 
 and so ; if they quote his authority, they ought 
 to look to his recorded opinions in 1825 and 1826, 
 or to look to the last speech that he made in 1830 : 
 the one relating to the state of the nation, in which 
 he gives his opinion as to the causes of distress and 
 the proper remedies to be applied to them, when his 
 opinions were unfettered by any connection with 
 Grovernment. 
 
 It may be remembered that a charge was made in 
 this House against Mr. Huskisson, and made in a very 
 unworthy spirit : veiy much, indeed, m the spirit in 
 which the Noble Lord opposite now attacks the advo- 
 cates of Free Trade. He was charged with cruelty 
 and heartlessness, and with having no feeling for the 
 re.st of mankind. Then Mr. Huskisson explamedhis 
 principles and vindicated his policy. On that occa- 
 sion he read a petition from the merchants of London, 
 from which I will now quote a passage : — 
 
 That of the numerous protective and prohibitory duties of our 
 Commerical Codes, it may be proved that while all operate as a 
 heavy tax on the community at large, very few are of any ultimate 
 benefit to the classes in whose favour they were originally in- 
 stituted ; and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them 
 to other classes. 
 
 That in thus declaring, as your Petitioners do, their conviction 
 of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in 
 desiring every practicable relaxation of it, they have in view only 
 such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately 
 so, with the public Revenue .... But it is against every 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 271 
 
 restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the Eevenue ; 
 against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and 
 against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of 
 revenue, and partly for that of Protection, that the prayer of 
 the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of 
 Parliament. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your 
 Honourable House will be pleased to take the subject into consi- 
 deration, and to adopt such measures as may be calculated to 
 give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase 
 the resources of the State. 
 
 What was Mr. Huskisson's object in reading that 
 petition? In the first place, to show that what was 
 ignorantly called a heartless theory of his own was 
 anxiously maintained by all the great practical com- 
 mercial men of the time ; and, in the second place, in 
 order to declare his entire agreement with them. He 
 spoke to this effect ; and these were his words : — 
 
 But I say now, as I always have said, that those who, either 
 by their speeches in Parliament, or the exertion of their talents 
 out of it, have contributed to bring the people in England to look 
 with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this peti- 
 tion, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country 
 an essential benefit. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that Mr. Huskisson identi- 
 tified himself with the principles contained in the 
 petition, and that his opinion was against all Protec- 
 tive Duties. 
 
 Persons like the Noble Lord say that they are 
 against- Prohibition, but in favour of Protection. 
 They two are not opposed to each other : Prohibition 
 is only a means of Protection. You may, to be sure, 
 mitigate Protection ; but then it is opposed to the 
 sound policy laid down in the petition for the abolition 
 of all Protective Duties not essential to the Revenue. 
 
272 PREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 And as long as the Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble 
 Lord adhere to the restrictive system so injurious, as 
 I am convinced it is, to this country, I for one will 
 withhold all support from them. 
 
 I do not, however, despond : I see the progress 
 that public opinion is making ; hardly a day passes 
 in which we do not hear of fresh converts to Free 
 Trade ; and I never heard of any who having been 
 converted, ever honestly recanted. 
 
 I do not in the least regret the change of Govern- 
 ment that is about to take place. I believe that it 
 is highly useful, nay, actually necessary, that some 
 such change should take place in order to secure the 
 establishment of a Free Trade policy. We shall now 
 have a large political party interested in converting 
 the community on the subject. I am rejoiced that 
 the dissolution has taken place, because it has 
 produced discussion on the subject and invited the 
 attention of the people to it ; and I am happy to see 
 with what result. If I stood here as a partisan I 
 should regret the result ; but the subject on which 
 I am now speaking is the one that engrosses my 
 attention. I am not here to promote any party what- 
 ever ; it is this question which so largely affects the 
 welfare of the country, that chiefly excites my interest 
 in politics, and I am watching its progress. The 
 dissolution has, I am satisfied, contributed much to 
 advance it. More persons have been returned favour- 
 able to Free Trade than ever before were returned ; 
 and judging from the speeches of two or three, whom 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 273 
 
 we have already heard, they will, I am sure, by their 
 influence, render great service to the cause. 
 
 It must, for example, be greatly promoted by the 
 facts and arguments so ably put forward by the Hon. 
 Member for Stockport,^ the effect produced by which 
 was really creditable to the House. It is by constant 
 discussion that we have hitherto advanced, and it is by 
 the same means that we shall ultimately succeed. I, 
 certainly, will follow out in practice the promise that 
 has been made by the Hon. Member for Renfrewshire, 
 and never cease, day or night, to elicit facts that will 
 strengthen the case, and to bring into light every 
 point that bears upon the subject. 
 
 I cannot now sit down without remarking upon 
 the heavy responsibility that rests upon those who 
 are coming into ofiice. I suppose that the Right Hon. 
 Baronet opposite will have to form the next Govern- 
 ment ; and if so, he will have complete power to do 
 what he thinks right. He has, I presume, moral 
 influence sufiicient to convert his friends to his own 
 opinion if they differ from him, and he has strength 
 enough to execute what he proposes ; and therefore 
 it is that I shall attribute whatever disaster may follow 
 from the present system, or whatever advantage may 
 accrue from a change, to the circumstance of his 
 coming into power. 
 
 If the sufferings of the people continue, if com- 
 merce languishes, if trade is checked, if the means of 
 employment are diminished, the whole of the responsi- 
 bility must rest with the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. 
 
 ' Mr. OoMen. 
 VOL. I. T 
 
274 FREE TRADE SPEECaiJS. 
 
 I believe that he has the power to change our pre- 
 sent commercial system so pregnant with evU ; and 
 the determination that he manifests to support or to 
 change it, will decide the opposition or the support 
 that he will receive in the country. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 275 
 
 X. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, February 18, 1842. 
 
 Immediately on the formation of Sir B. Peel's Administration in Sep- 
 tember 1841, resolutions were passed at meetings held throughout the 
 manufacturing districts, asserting the deep distress caused by the Corn 
 Laws, and petitions to the Queen were adopted praying her not to prorogue 
 Parliament until that portion of her Speech delivered at the opening of the 
 Session, relating to the Corn Laws, had been fully deliberated upon and the 
 distresses of her people taken into consideration. A cartload of these 
 petitions was sent from Manchester on October 7. Sir B. Peel anxious, as 
 he expressly stated, to gain time, had already resolved on the prorogation. 
 The Queen, on the advice of her Ministers, expressed her willingness to re- 
 ceive the petitions through the Home Secretary ; and thus Earl Eadnor, 
 Earl Ducie, Lord Kinnaird, and others, were frustrated in their intention of 
 making a verbal statement of the existing distress when the petitions were 
 presented. The Queen's answer to the petitioners was an acknowledgment 
 on the pai't of the Ministry of the extreme distress prevalent, which, never- 
 theless, by the prorogation of Parliament on October 7 itself, they refused 
 to take measures to relieve till Parliament should meet again, four months 
 thence, in February. At that time there were 20,936 persons in Leeds alone 
 whose average earnings were only ll^d. a week. Parliament reassembled 
 on February 3, 1842. The retirement from the Cabinet three days pre- 
 viously of the Duke of Buckingham, the zealous supporter of the existing 
 Corn Laws, caused a panic amongst the Protectionists. The Speech from 
 the Throne acknowledged with deep regret the continued distress in the 
 manufacturing districts, graciously commended 'the exemplary patience 
 and fortitude with which the sufferings and privations ' resulting from it 
 had been borne by the people, and recommended to both Houses the con- 
 sideration of the ' Laws which affect the imports of Corn and other 
 articles.' On February 9, Sir B. Peel, in a crowded House, deplored the 
 distress, said that he could not attribute it in any degree to the operation 
 of the Corn Laws — the wars in China and Syria, joint-stock banks, em- 
 barrassments in America, machinery, over-production, a succession of bad 
 harvests, anything but the Corn Laws had caused it — and then introduced 
 his new Slidiog Scale, which would make the highest duty on Com 20s. 
 instead of 38s. 8d. Mr. Gladstone, not then a member of the Cabinet, 
 spoke in favour of the Sliding Scale during the debate on Lord J. Eussell's 
 Amendment utterly rejecting the Ministerial measure, which was lost by a 
 majority of 123. On the following Friday, February 18, Mr. Villiers brought 
 forward his promised Motion for the total abolition of all duties on Corn ; 
 
276 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the debate on it lasted five nights ; and the numbers on the division were 
 90 for the Motion to 393 against. During this debate the Protectionists 
 distinguished themselves by their heartless merriment and violent abuse 
 of the advocates of Free Trade. 
 
 I AM anxious to read to tlie House a petition 
 addressed to them and signed by the Chairman of a 
 Conference consisting of delegates from all parts of 
 England, Scotland, and Wales, lately held ra London. 
 The petition is as follows : — 
 
 To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 in Parliament assembled. 
 
 The Petition of the midersigned Peter Alfred Taylor, of the 
 City of London, 
 
 Humbly sheweth, that your petitioner was Chairman of a 
 Conference held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Strand, on 
 February 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1842, of 720 delegates from all 
 parts of England, Scotland, and Wales, appointed by large num- 
 bers of their fellow-subjects, to consider of the total and imme- 
 diate repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws. 
 
 That the delegates at that meeting were appointed from 
 large towns and extensive districts in which all the principal 
 staple manufactures of the country were carried on — viz. cotton, 
 linen, cloth, hosiery, hardware, cutlery, flax, &c. 
 
 That at that Conference the following resolution, expressing 
 a desire to forego all protection for their several manufactures, 
 was unanimously passed : — 
 
 ' That the deputies present connected with the staple manu- 
 factures of the country, whilst they demand the removal of all 
 restrictions upon the importation of corn and provisions, declare 
 their willmgness to aid in the abolition of all duties imposed for 
 their own protection.' 
 
 That this resolution was not passed without previous thought 
 and deep consideration, the same resolution having been passed 
 at large meetitags held in the immediate towns and districts 
 where the several branches of manufacture are extensively in 
 operation, viz. at Manchester, at a meeting of those engaged 
 iu the cotton trade of Lancashire ; at Leeds, by those engaged in 
 the clothing trade of Yorkshire ; at Bath, for the West of Eng- 
 
HOUSE OP COMMONS. 277 
 
 land clothing trade ; at Derby, for the hosiery and other manu- 
 factures of the midland counties ; at Birmingham, for the 
 hardware of Staffordshire and Warwickshire ; at Sheffield, for 
 cutlery and plated ware ; at Dundee, for the flax and linen trade. 
 That as all the principal branches of manufacturing industrial 
 employment and capital have thus expressed their desire to give 
 up all legislative protection whatever, your petitioner prays your 
 Honourable House that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects be 
 placed upon the same footing, and that the trade in corn and 
 provisions be left free and open, as well as in all the productions 
 of manufacturing industry. 
 
 P. A. Tayloe. 
 
 I trust that this petition will not be considered an 
 inappropriate introduction to the Motion of which I 
 have given notice — a Motion that, notwithstanding all 
 that has been said with respect to the illogical order 
 in which it is now submitted to the House, is brought 
 forward at a moment that I can only consider as 
 favourable to it ; for it follows a discussion in which 
 the greatest ability and ingenuity have been dis- 
 played on each side of the House, in manifesting 
 the evils and difficulties that belong both to the pro- 
 ject proposed by the present Government, and that 
 which was proposed by their predecessors ; which 
 renders the Motion that I am about to submit so far 
 opportune that whatever arguments may be urged 
 against it, it is clear of those difficulties and those 
 objections that have been urged against the two other 
 measures. 
 
 I therefore now rise, in pursuance of my Notice, 
 to ask the House to condemn in toto, and to abolish 
 for ever the Laws that they were then in Committee 
 to consider ; Laws the avowed purpose of which is 
 
278 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to raise the price by limiting the amount of human 
 subsistence ; Laws that, by the admission of a dis- 
 tinguished member of the Government, have the effect 
 of raising the price of food and of raising the rate of 
 rent, but not of raising the wages of labour ; Laws 
 that, inasmuch as they have this purpose, this object 
 in view, no matter under what impression they may 
 originally have been passed — erroneous if you please, 
 or gravely culpable as many think, I must consider can 
 only exist now in gross and open violation of every 
 principle that ought to regulate the economy and 
 policy of any State. And I do not despair of yet per- 
 suading this House of the prudence and importance of 
 abolishing, for ever. Laws of such a character. 
 
 I say that I do not despair, because I hail with 
 hope, as I do with satisfaction, the admission that 
 has been made this year : an admission hitherto refused 
 on the ground that the Laws were good, that they 
 had worked well — and therefore ought not to be 
 changed. I now gladly avail myself of the concession 
 made on all sides of the House, that these Laws ought 
 to be changed, because they have worked ill, and be- 
 cause — to use the emphatic language of one of their 
 sternest supporters, the Hon. Member for Lincoln- 
 shire — they are Laws that have worked well only for 
 the purposes of dishonest men. 
 
 I stand then on this ground which our opponents 
 have conceded, and I ask them to pause before they 
 again attempt to regulate that which is beyond their 
 reach ; and which, if they could attain it, would only 
 be a success more fatal than failure. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 279 
 
 I now implore the supporters of the Corn Laws 
 to consult their consciences as to the motives and 
 their experience as to the results of all such enact- 
 ments ; and then to say on what they found their 
 hopes of being able to construct on the ruins of these 
 Laws now discredited and about to be abandoned, 
 any similar laws that would be more durable and 
 less indefensible. 
 
 I ask their attention to the circumstance that for 
 four centuries the proprietors of the soil have been 
 attempting to legislate for the purpose of giving value 
 to their properties ; and that the result of aU such 
 efforts has been to prejudice those properties, and 
 greatly to lower their owners in the estimation of the 
 country. I am not unwUling to admit that at an 
 early period much error and ignorance prevailed 
 amongst them on the subject, and that they might 
 have believed that they were promoting the general 
 interest by serving their own. But in more recent 
 periods, and since the Crown has been subjected to 
 Parliament and Parliament has been composed of the 
 proprietors of land, they have been labouring with 
 deliberate purpose to enhance the value of land at 
 the expense of the commimity ; and in this century 
 especially they have done so in defiance of the feelings 
 and opinions of the community. 
 
 In 1815 the people of this country perfectly under- 
 stood the principle of the Corn Laws, and ever since 
 then down to the present day they have been suffer- 
 ing from their operation. And now you are about 
 to attempt another experiment on the patience and 
 
280 FREE TBADE SPEECHES. 
 
 temper of the people by whicli, in the judgment of 
 every thinking man, you will jeopard your power far 
 more than the continued maintenance of these Laws 
 could. 
 
 This is not a time when, with full liberty of 
 thought and expression allowed, you can perpetrate 
 a wrong in open day with all men's eyes upon you. 
 Men who have knowledge may inflict much wrong 
 upon those who have it not ; but if this be your 
 principle of conduct, your folly in aiding to diffuse 
 knowledge and to promote education cannot be ade- 
 quately described. The results of such folly are 
 already manifest ; for — and I say it without intend- 
 ing any offence to the House — this House does not 
 fairly represent the knowledge and intelligence outside 
 it. It is not a faithful picture of the information pos- 
 sessed by the middle and working classes. It is the 
 observation of every man who goes among these classes 
 that they now evince a knowledge of public affairs, a 
 shrewdness of perception, and an absence of prejudice 
 that was never remarked before. 
 
 I mention this simply to show how futile it is for 
 you to expect that any legislation bearing upon the 
 general interests can now escape the severest scrutiny ; 
 and above all is this applicable to the Corn Laws, 
 which specially engage their attention. The people 
 of this country, and I here refer to a sufficiently 
 large number of persons of all classes to j ustify me in 
 using this title, have determined that these Laws 
 shall not continue. I believe that the mind of the 
 great majority of the people is made up on the sub- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 281 
 
 ject, and that they will use every means within their 
 power and within the law, to emancipate the industry 
 and commerce of the country from the Corn Laws. 
 They now distinctly demand us to relieve ourselves of 
 the discredit and the Statute Book of the disgrace of 
 continuing them ; and to cease to expose ourselves to 
 the charge of a mere vulgar breach of trust in abusing 
 for our own purposes the powers confided to us. 
 
 We have no reason to complain of the temper in 
 which the people now approach us in making this 
 demand. I know by the time and trouble that I have 
 given to the subject that nothing ha,s been left undone 
 to insure a calm consideration of it. We have been 
 asked to consider it in times of comparative quietude, 
 in times of comparative prosperity ; we have been 
 asked to do little ; we have been asked to act slowly ; 
 but every change has been steadily and sternly re- 
 fused : the smallest modification of the Measure has 
 been always refused. 
 
 Is it wonderful then that exhausted by distress 
 and perhaps excited by despair, they should now in 
 angry tones demand the total abolition of these Laws? 
 We have heard much grumbling and complaint be- 
 cause the ministers of the Gospel, the pastors of the 
 people, have lately come forth to proclaim the suf- 
 ferings of their flocks : I wish that the professed 
 friends of the people would think that they could 
 serve them better than by always pecking and carp- 
 ing at their proceedings. What are the people to 
 do ? They are not fully and fairly represented in this 
 House ! Where then can they with more propriety 
 
282 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 seek for advocates to plead their wrongs tlian among 
 intelligent men who live amidst them and are com- 
 petent to treat of their sufferings ? And where could 
 they with more convenience or expediency have found 
 such men than among their spiritual advisers ? It is 
 because these men have assembled together to discuss 
 the miseries of their people and to take counsel how 
 they could relieve them, that we have heard such cen- 
 sure cast upon their conduct. 
 
 Knowing much myself and hearing much from 
 others of the sufferings of the people, I can find only 
 matter for admiration in their forbearance, and excuse 
 in their violence. 
 
 I do not, however, stand here solely to vindicate 
 the manner in which redress is sought by the people : 
 I come here to justify the measure of relief itself that 
 they seek. And I am prepared to contend that what 
 they demand is reasonable ; that it would produce 
 instant benefit ; that it would cause no national evil ; 
 that it is unjust to no one ; and that it ought to be 
 conceded on every principle of justice and policy. 
 And how can I better recommend the measure which 
 is the subject of my Notice for this evemng, than by 
 pointing to the condition of the country and the 
 operation of the Corn Laws? 
 
 What an anomaly England presents to the world 
 at this moment! Abounding in natural resources, 
 and possessing a power for their development 
 more productive than that enjoyed in any other 
 land, her industrious classes are nevertheless so re- 
 duced by want and distress that the Member who 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 283 
 
 was appointed by the Government to answer the 
 message of the Crown, stated upon the responsibility 
 of the Government, that whatever might be said of 
 the distress could not be an exaggeration. And far, 
 far beyond the circle of Government we find it 
 admitted that England — England rich in the gifts of 
 nature, rich in knowledge, rich in the skill and the 
 habits and disposition of her people, yet limited in 
 extent and with her people hourly increasing — wants 
 food : she has reached the point long foreseen when 
 she must procure her food from other lands ; her food 
 is now scarce and ever becoming scarcer ; and in press- 
 ing need of its ready and regular supply her people are 
 daily sinking lower and lower in the scale of comfort 
 and well-being. And yet is there a man who has 
 been found so false and so foolish as to proclaim this 
 as the necessary condition of our country ? Is there 
 any man so dull that opening his chart of the Globe 
 and seeing this Island placed between the two great 
 civilized continents of the world, he would not ask if 
 it is possible that England so in want, cannot receive 
 relief from neighbours so situated? Whether Eng- 
 land has nothing of her own to offer in exchange for 
 what she so wants? And if a man under such cir- 
 cumstances hears that these continents stand in great 
 need of what England produces and yearly suffer 
 from not finding vent for their surplus food, would 
 he not in wonder ask for some solution of this mys- 
 tery? And is there any that could be rendered save 
 that the rulers of this country, who are also the owners 
 of its soil, place a barrier to the commerce of the 
 
284 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 world in what they produce themselves in order to 
 enhance the value of their own properties? The bar- 
 rier of the Laws by which they notify that no man 
 shall find a market in England for food necessary to 
 the support of her people on which he can rely ; and 
 which, thus impedmg the trade in food, entails a dire 
 distress which nothing but making the trade in food 
 free can relieve? 
 
 This is my theory to account for the present 
 anomalous condition of England ; if you dispute it, 
 it is for you to prove that I am wrong. Try it by 
 every test in your power and show if you can that I 
 am wrong. But let me only be supposed to be right, 
 and then I would ask whether there is a sinsfle 
 feature in the present distress of the country that you 
 would not expect to find? What would you look 
 for under such circumstances? The high price of 
 food now compels men to forego the comforts and 
 refinements of life, and thereby it deprives of em- 
 ployment those who are dependent for their liveli- 
 hood on the production of such comforts and refine- 
 ments. Suffering fi-om a deficient supply of food we 
 are obliged, owing to the absence of all regular com- 
 merce in food with foreign countries, to send buUion 
 that is needed at home out of the country to purchase 
 at an enormous cost the food of other nations, thus, 
 by contracting the basis of our credit, embarrassmg 
 and limiting still further the Home Trade. Other 
 countries are forced by our refusal of their surplus 
 food, to withhold their custom from us and become then- 
 own manufacturers ; and, in aU probability, they wiU 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 285 
 
 soon be our rivals. General discontent and disaffec- 
 tion among our industrious people are the inevitable 
 result. Now all these evils exist in this country at 
 the present moment, and are the constant and com- 
 mon subject of remark. Granted the truth of my 
 theory, which of them would you expect to be absent ? 
 I call upon Hon. Gentlemen opposite who mamtain 
 the Corn Laws and who admit the condition of the 
 country to be such as I have described it, to explain 
 by what cause these effects have been produced if 
 not by the cause that I have assigned. 
 
 The want of food and the want of regular trade 
 I unhesitatingly affirm to be the chief cause of all the 
 distress that is now admitted to exist ; and I rejoice 
 to observe that the good sense and sagacity of the 
 people are at last prevailing on this siibj ect as they have 
 ever prevailed in former times when a great question 
 has agitated the country. 
 
 In spite of every effort made to mislead and 
 delude them, though the ground has been trailed in 
 every direction by rubbish of every kind, the people 
 have not been diverted from the right track which 
 they are now pursuing. Most gratifying have been the 
 indications of the influence of public opinion in this 
 respect within one year. Two Governments have 
 successively acknowledged the imperative necessity 
 of dealing with the question. One Government 
 indeed thought it of so much importance and at- 
 tached so much weight to the opinion generally enter- 
 tained about it that they were ready to sacrifice 
 Office on it. And now we have another Govern- 
 
286 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ment thinking proper to admit that which hitherto it 
 has denied : that the existing Corn Laws must be 
 changed. This is now to be done notwithstandmg 
 all that has been said in favour of them. Two 
 projects for changing them and mitigating then- 
 evils are before the country at present : I object 
 to both. I do not deny that the plan of the Noble 
 Lord would mitigate the prominent evils of the 
 existing Corn Laws, and I believe that much im- 
 provement would have followed had the plan been 
 adopted. But I contend that his project and that 
 of the Right Hon. Baronet are both unjust ; that there 
 is no justice in the principle of either one or the other ; 
 and that there is no ground whatever for the main- 
 tenance of any Corn Law. 
 
 The people are said to be unreasonable for con- 
 demning the measures alluded to ; but I am here to 
 defend their claim upon the ground of justice ; and 
 I do not know any teacher of morals, any writer on 
 ethics, who justifies wrong in any form. The Corn 
 Laws are right or wrong in principle. If they are 
 wrong, why should they be maintained? This was 
 what the people urged against the plan of the Noble 
 Lord. The Corn Laws become more objectionable from 
 the manner in which the plan before the House has been 
 recommended to us. The present Laws are justified 
 by the plan proposed by the Noble Lord. It is said 
 that the plan of the Noble Lord is unjust, and that, 
 therefore, he has no right to complain of the injustice 
 of the measures others have proposed. 
 
 The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dor- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 287 
 
 Chester seems to take this view of the matter ; and in 
 addressing himself to the argunjent he said that he was 
 cured of giving large measures of justice. His line of 
 defence was this : ' If I am an unjust man you are 
 another.' The Right Hon. Baronet, indeed, defended 
 the injustice upon the ground of expediency , having as 
 he said learnt by experience not to dole out too much 
 justice at a time. When or where the Right Hon. 
 Baronet acquired this experience I do not know ; but 
 I should like to know whether when the people re- 
 mained discontented after having received a full 
 measure of justice the Right Hon. Baronet may not 
 have mistaken a large measure for a perfect one, and 
 that the discontent he speaks of may not arise from 
 its having been large in principle and promise yet 
 defective and incomplete in execution. 
 
 The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam- 
 worth seems to think that nothing more is required 
 to vindicate his own plan than to expose the diffi- 
 culties of that of the Noble Lord ; and he disposed of 
 the claim that this Motion prefers by a sort of passing 
 allusion to the party by whom it" is represented in 
 this House. He describes them as a small party that 
 he believes to exist, holding extreme opinions and 
 capable, probably, of violence in the expression of 
 them. This is the way in which the Right Hon. 
 Baronet treats the millions who in this country claim 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 
 The small and violent party, however, have the 
 consolation of knowing that in this respect they only 
 receive the treatment that every party that has first 
 
288 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 advanced the remedy or reform of any abuse has ever 
 received. It is in this way that the advocates of all the 
 great measures of which England. has most reason to 
 be proud have been treated in this House. We have 
 then simply to persevere in the course that we have 
 hitherto pursued, notwithstanding the Right Hon. 
 Baronet's charge of violence and unreasonableness. 
 [Sir R. Peel denied this statement.] I am happy to 
 hear the Right Hon. Baronet disavow this view of 
 his Motion ; it is one, however, expressed on both 
 sides of the House. I do not confine it to the party 
 opposite ; and I do not doubt that it will be repeated 
 again during the debate. 
 
 And here I should just like to ask those gentle- 
 men who are so hostile to Repeal whether they con- 
 sider that there is anything more unreasonable hi 
 asking for the repeal of the Corn Laws than after 
 refusing for many years past to inquii-e into their 
 operation admittuag now that they have worked Ul. 
 Would there be anything more violent in their 
 immediate repeal than there was in their preci- 
 pitate enactment ? Did we ever hear any of that 
 cautious phraseology at the time of the passing of the 
 Laws that we now hear in vindication of this mini- 
 mum of concession ? We have been invited to be 
 careful in dealing with the vast interests at stake ; 
 we are told of the vast capital in question ; of the 
 social interests dependent upon the landed interests ; 
 but Avhen these Laws were enacted, and since they 
 have been in operation, when has a syllable been said 
 or heeded by those who profit by them about the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 289 
 
 lives, the comforts, the well-being, the industry, and 
 the capital of the millions of this country who are 
 and who have been cruelly affected by them ? 
 
 The working people openly resisted their enact- 
 ment and they have ever since complained of their 
 operation ; but without the least regard to their mani- 
 fold interests the Corn Laws have been maintained 
 in force against them. To this day there has been 
 nothing proposed in defence of the Corn Laws that 
 might not with equal reason have been advanced in 
 favour of any other abuse, any other Monopoly : the 
 sum of it all — urged, indeed, with little grace to a 
 people who have been for thirty years crying out 
 for Eepeal — is the alleged necessity of upholdmg the 
 interest of a class by exceptional laws. Such arguments 
 are, mdeed, a mockery of the people. Thousands are 
 now on the eve of starving. Is this the moment then 
 to talk of the interests vested in the Corn Laws ? Is 
 this the time to talk of proceeding with all deference 
 for the rich when the poor through our unreasonable 
 adhesion to these Laws have already been driven to the 
 last extremity ? To give a pretence to such reasoning 
 you ought long since to have begun your modifications. 
 You have had ample warning and you have resisted 
 all solicitation ; and now the people have neither time 
 nor temper for delay : they are starraig, and they 
 must have food. 
 
 There is no wrong that might not be defended 
 upon the grounds on which the wretched concession 
 now ofi"ered to the people is justified. A short time 
 since we read of a captain of a Turkish vessel who 
 
 VOL. I. u 
 
290 FBEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 had inveigled a number of passengers to sail with 
 him on the assurance that they would find a requisite 
 supply of provisions and water on board ; but when 
 they were out at sea he monopolized the water and 
 would allow only those to drink who could pay the 
 price he chose to extort. There is not a Conservative 
 phrase used by the Riglit Hon. Baronet iu defence of 
 the Com Laws that might not with equal reason have 
 been used by this captain m defence of his Monopoly : 
 it would have been just as much in point in reply to 
 the people whom he had engaged to supply and who 
 were dying of thirst, that great interests were in- 
 vested in the supply of water, that great expense 
 had been incurred in fitting out the vessel, and that 
 the navigation of those seas was attended with great 
 hazard. It would have been just as much in place, 
 and quite as consistent with justice, as what we have 
 heard in defence of the Corn Laws. 
 
 The question is whether you had any right at all 
 to pass the Laws and whether they have not become 
 altogether too disastrous to be endured any longer. 
 My answer is that the Corn Laws are and always 
 were atrociously unjust ; that the evils they are hourly 
 producing are past endurance ; and that there is 
 ample authority to show that the advantage to the 
 nation that would follow from their instant repeal 
 would not be attended by any injury to the landed 
 
 interest. 
 
 There are I know, honest and disinterested men 
 who detest the Corn Laws, but who, nevertheless, 
 have scruples about total Repeal, fearing the imme- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 291 
 
 diate consequence of such a step to the country. These 
 persons are not, perhaps, very fully represented in 
 this House ; but their opinions require deference and 
 deserve to be considered. 
 
 They ask whether the total repeal of the Corn 
 Laws might not be prejudicial to agriculture, and 
 whether the landlords do not bear exclusively a large 
 portion of the national burdens. These no doubt are 
 points that call for attention, and those who claim 
 total Repeal have not overlooked them ; but we have 
 the highest authority for declaring that the plea they 
 have furnished for the Corn Laws does not rest upon 
 solid ground of any kind whatever. 
 
 Who is the first man that I can name in support 
 of my view ? One of the most eminent statesmen of 
 his day : I mean Lord Grenville, a man remarkable 
 for his sagacity, his talent, and his character. How 
 did he view the Corn Laws ? In the first place, he 
 declared them to be a bounty to the grower of corn 
 and thereby a tax on the consumer. And what did 
 he say as to the policy of such a tax ? He said : — 
 
 The great practical rule of leaving all commerce unfettered 
 applies more peculiarly, and on still stronger grounds of justice 
 as well as policy, to the Corn Trade than to any other ; and irre- 
 sistible indeed must be the necessity which could authorize the 
 Legislature to tamper with the sustenance of the people, and to 
 impede the free purchase of that article on which depends the 
 existence of so large a portion of the community. 
 
 This was the opinion of the greatest statesman 
 of his day when the first Corn Law was proposed. 
 
 Five years after that time what was the opinion 
 of the commercial classes upon this and all similar 
 
292 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 laws as declared by the leading merchants of London 
 assembled in their Guildhall ? They denounced Pro- 
 tection in strong terms, and in the special interest of 
 commerce and the general interest of the community 
 called for the repeal of all Protective Duties whether 
 for land or manufactures. 
 
 In 1821 we have the authority of this House itself 
 against the system of Protection. The landlords de- 
 ceived by the promise of their own Laws mquired 
 themselves into the causes of agricultural depression, 
 and the real sources from which they might expect 
 the future prosperity of agriculture. And what do 
 we find in the deliberate Report of a Committee of 
 these land- owners ? Nothing less than a contrast in 
 favour of Free Trade drawn between two periods : the 
 one commencing at the beginning of the last century 
 and continuing till 1773, during which legislation of 
 every kind was attempted to raise the value of agri- 
 cultural produce ; and the other during which the 
 trade in grain was almost fi'ee, and which lasted till 
 1791. 
 
 Let the House hear the extract from this Report, 
 and then say whether they can doubt that the opinion 
 of this Committee was in favour of Free Trade : — 
 
 Your Committee cannot look at these contrasted circumstances 
 coincident during the first period with a comparative stagnation 
 of our agriculture, and during the second with its most rapid 
 growth and improvement, without acknowledging that there was 
 nothing in the system pursued up to 1773, which necessarily 
 promoted this most essential branch of public industry and 
 national wealth ; and also that there is nothing incompatible 
 with the success of both these objects in the system which has 
 practically prevailed since that date. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 293 
 
 Again ; the Report says : — 
 
 That they may entertain a doubt whether the only solid 
 foundation of the flourishing state of agriculture is not laid in 
 abstaining as much as possible from interference, either by Pro- 
 tection or Prohibition, with the application of capital in any 
 branch of industry. Whether all fears for the decline of agri- 
 culture, either from temporary vicissitudes, to which all specu- 
 lations are liable, or from the extension of other pursuits of 
 general industry, are not in a great degree imaginary. Whether 
 commerce can expand, manufactures thrive, and great public 
 works be undertaken, without furnishing to the skill and labour 
 which the capital thus employed put in motion, increased means 
 of paying for the productions of the land. Whether the prin- 
 cipal part of those productions which contribute to the gratifica- 
 tion of the wants and desires of the different classes of the com- 
 munity must not necessarily be drawn from our own soil, the 
 demand increasing with the population, as the population must 
 increase with the riches of the country. Whether a great part 
 of the same capital which is employed in supporting the industry 
 coimected with manufactures and commerce, does not, passing 
 by a very rapid course into the hands of the occupier of the soil, 
 serve also as capital for the encouragement of agriculture. 
 Whether in our own country, in former times, agriculture has 
 not languished from the want of such a stimulus ; and whether, 
 in those countries, the proprietors of the land are not themselves 
 poor, and the people wretched in proportion, as, from want of 
 capital, their labour is more exclusively confined to raising from 
 their own soil the means of their own scanty subsistence. 
 
 This Committee was composed of shrewd land- 
 owners carefully considering their own interests. 
 
 But at" the present day also we have some of the 
 largest proprietors of land in the country — men of 
 great intelligence and experience who have devoted 
 much attention to agriculture, in favour of the aboli- 
 tion of all Protective Duties : they do not need Pro- 
 tection, and see no danger in its abolition. I may 
 mention among them such men as Lord Spencer, 
 
294 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Radnor, and Lord Leicester, 
 who repudiate absolutely tlie justice or necessity of 
 Protection as an advantage to their properties. 
 
 Where is it that skill and economy in husbandry 
 are most displayed ? Surely in Scotland ! And in 
 Scotland there is not a public meeting, not a demon- 
 stration against the Corn Laws, in which some occu- 
 pier of land is not ready to declare that his mterests 
 are directly opposed to them. For the last ten years 
 this has been the case. And the Scotchmen always 
 support their speeches by facts. 
 
 The same opinions were expressed in 1836 by 
 farmers before a Committee of the House of Commons. 
 
 In consequence of the part that I have taken on 
 this question I have received many letters dealing with 
 it ; and from none have I received letters expressed in 
 greater bitterness of language against the Corn Laws 
 than from farmers themselves. 
 
 I have here also some works on the subject by 
 country gentlemen, who when they commit their 
 thoughts to paper are well worth consulting. Quite 
 lately I read a pamphlet published by one who is 
 not unknown to the Right Hon. Baronet the Member 
 for Dorchester — a person of great experience in agri- 
 culture who describes himself as ' A Cumberland 
 Landowner.' I believe that the Right Hon. Baronet 
 is acquainted with the author, who invites the at- 
 tention of the landed interest to his opinions. [Sir 
 J. Graham was understood to say it was not his 
 ^^ork.j I do not mean to say that the Right Hon. 
 Baronet is the author but that he knows him, and 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 295 
 
 knows him to be what he represents himself to be in 
 the following passage (p. 69) : — 
 
 One of their own body ; one who has no ambition to gratify, 
 no purpose of the day to serve ; but attached to the interest of 
 that yeomanry, which he knows to be the pride and the strength 
 of this great nation, he feels the love of truth predominant in his 
 heart ; and well satisfied of the grounds of the assertion herein 
 developed, he boldly affirms that a free trade in foreign corn is 
 the real interest of the land-owner, and the only safe policy of the 
 State. 
 
 Again; after detailing the mischiefs to be ex- 
 pected from restrictions on trade, he says : — 
 
 On the other hand, what have we to fear from the open com- 
 petition of Free Trade ? Nature and art have fitted up our native 
 land with the means for carrying on production and barter 
 beyond any other nation in the world ; while its civil institutions, 
 and the spirit of its people, are every way qualified to bear out 
 these great advantages. Look at our roads, our canals, our docks, 
 and our public works ; arms of the sea traversed by bridges ; 
 hills, and even rivers, undermined by tunnels ; our steamboats 
 covering every navigable water. Then consider our natural 
 advantages — our sea-girt islands, intersected by mighty rivers 
 worthy of a continent ; our meadows fertilized by living streams ; 
 our verdant pastures ; our climate favourable to the growth of 
 corn ; our sheep and cattle on a thousand hiUs. Look at our 
 smiling land, where nature has been prodigal, and where art has 
 supplied what nature has refused ; then say whether we need fear 
 competition with any foreign State ; whether we have not the 
 start of a century in the career of commercial rivalry ; and 
 whether, with open ports and trade unfettered, the half cultivated 
 sands of Poland, or even the vine-clad hills of France, need 
 excite the envy or the fears of Great Britain — of Britain, the 
 seat of wealth, of freedom, and of arts. 
 
 Again (p. 63) : — 
 
 The prosperity of the home trade, and the advancement of 
 British agriculture, has always been soundest and most rapid 
 when our foreign trade has been most prosperous and free. Give 
 
296 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the industry of Britain only a fair and open field, and it lias 
 nothing whatever to dread from foreign rivalship. 
 
 And at page 61 : — 
 
 What have the landed interests of England to fear, either poh- 
 tically as a body, or in reference to the retention of their incomes, 
 from the utmost prosperity of commerce that can possibly arise ? 
 The whole soil is theirs ; and the more prosperous our towns are, 
 the more must the rent-rolls of the land-owners increase. 
 
 And again (p. 62) : — 
 
 We hear a great deal about emigration, the increase of the 
 commission of crime, &c., &e., and the inability of our shipping 
 and manufacturing interests to enter into free competition with 
 foreigners. Give to the people profitable employment, and a 
 price of provisions at home more equalized with prices abroad, 
 and all these complaints will at once vanish like a mist before 
 the morning sun. No wonder that we have an overstock of 
 manufactured goods, when the operatives, to gain the most 
 limited livelihood, are compelled to work fcom fourteen to sixteen 
 hours in each working day. Equalize the prices between corn 
 and wages, and these men would immediately cease to labour so 
 excessively ; the overstock of the market would disappear, a 
 greater ability to purchase would ensue, and a rapid rise of prices 
 would at once show how destructive the influence of Corn Laws 
 has been. 
 
 I will now turn to another publication ^ by an 
 intelligent land-owner in Surrey, known to many 
 Members in this House : — 
 
 I am the owner of a tract of land, which probably contains a 
 larger portion of poor land, as compared with the good, than 
 most other land- owners in this county ; yet I am confident that 
 not an acre would be rendered useless by the opening of the ports 
 for the introduction of foreign corn : and it has been repeatedly 
 shown that every acre of land which it was possible to culti- 
 vate with profit last year (when wheat was at 55s. 6d., rye 31s., 
 
 ' Cheap Corn best for Fm-mers, proved in a letter to George Holme Sum- 
 ner, Esq., late M,P.for the County of Surrey, by one of his Oonstituenta, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 297 
 
 barley 83s., oats 22s.), might continue to be so cultivated, were 
 every restriction and prohibition abolished, and the public allowed 
 to purchase their corn in the cheapest markets. But such a 
 reduction of price, as would not be sufficient to cause even the 
 very poorest lands now under corn to be laid down to pasture, 
 would so increase the comfort of the labourer, and give such an 
 immense stimulus to industry in general, that the progress of the 
 country hi wealth would be accelerated in a degree that can 
 hardly be conceived. The more the landlords contend that corn 
 would be cheap if the ports were open, the more they prove what 
 a nuisance the present Corn Laws are. 
 
 Referring to the interests of the farmer he says 
 (p. 36) :- 
 
 I again repeat that until the ports are open no farmer who 
 knows his own interest will bind himself by a lease : if he does, 
 he ought to take it at a com rent, that is, with a lease fluctuating 
 with the price of corn : if he does not do this, he puts his fortune, 
 and the independence of himself and children, at the mercy of his 
 landlord, or of the Bank Directors, or of the Government. 
 
 And he concludes his able and argumentative 
 work by the following summary which he declares 
 he has proved (p. 37) : — 
 
 1. That the land-owners' monopoly of corn is the heaviest tax 
 which the people have to pay. 
 
 2. That the land-owners and their families are the only per- 
 sons who gain by this tax. 
 
 3. That all other classes, including farmers, are injured by 
 this tax. 
 
 4. That of all taxes, it is the one which presses hardest upon 
 the labourers. 
 
 5. That the gain to the landlord from this tax is not so great 
 as the loss to the people. 
 
 It follows that the immediate abolition of the monopoly of 
 corn which the landlords now enjoy under the present Corn 
 Laws is a measure of bare justice and absolute necessity. 
 
 And now I will ask the House to hear the latest 
 
298 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 opinion of a land- owner who formerly represented the 
 district for which I sit, whose whole income is de- 
 rived from land, and whose estate is not dependent 
 on a manufacturing neighbourhood : I mean Mr. 
 Whitmore. Mr. Whitmore in his 'Letter to the 
 Agriculturists of the County of Salop ' says : — 
 
 The present law, without conferring any real benefit on our own 
 agriculturists, does infinite mischief to the rest of the community ; 
 so the change, without any injury to the former, would do infi- 
 nite good to the latter, (p. 11.) 
 
 I am inclined to believe that a free trade in corn would not 
 admit of any considerable quantity of wheat being sold in our 
 markets under from 45s. to 48s. (p. 7.) 
 
 Taking these circumstances into consideration, I cannot enter- 
 tain any apprehension of the slightest ill- effect to our own agri- 
 culture by the change. I believe we shall consume easily all the 
 corn we can grow, and all we can import ; but I believe also we 
 should want more of meat, and of beer too — matters of immense 
 moment to the graziers, the breeders of stock, and the barley 
 growers of this country ; and who, amongst the agriculturists, 
 will not come under one or other of these descriptions, (p. 7.) 
 
 A larger consumption, and consequently a greater demand, 
 for every species of grass produce, in a fresh or uncured state, 
 such as milk, butter, meat, &c., is the necessary consequence of 
 a population at once increasing and well employed. The large 
 proportion which grass land bears to arable, in every densely 
 peopled district, cannot fail to have struck every observant agri- 
 culturist, (p. 10.) 
 
 I can, from my own experience, assert that, even now, the 
 laying down land of every quality, including the very best, to per- 
 manent pasture is a profitable application of it. (p. 10.) 
 
 I could quote many other authorities among 
 agriculturists who have most considered the subject, to 
 the same effect, and still more from writers who are not 
 connected with the interest in question ; but I know 
 that these are not popular authorities, more especially 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 299 
 
 if they deserve the title of political economists. I will 
 therefore content myself with quoting two only of the 
 latter class, and these I choose because they are men 
 whom the Right Hon. Baronet looks upon as autho- 
 rities for some of his positions, and because he is in 
 the habit of quoting them in the House. I mean 
 Mr. M'Culloch and Mr. Tooke. I will not quote 
 Mr. j\I'Culloch for all his opinions, but I will quote 
 him for the reasons that the Right Hon. Baronet 
 assigned when he last quoted him : namely, as 
 ' One of the most intelligent and able advocates of 
 Free Trade ; one who takes a dispassionate and able 
 view of the case, looks at it calmly, reasons upon 
 it closely, a clever and able man ; ' and because I 
 am told that my Motion is unreasonable, and the 
 ' calm and clever man ' has given his opinion upon 
 the subject of it. Mr. M'Culloch says: — 
 
 The truth is, that the agriculturists have nothing to fear even 
 from the total and unconditional repeal of the Corn Laws. It 
 admits of demonstration that it could then do no real injury. 
 It would not throw an acre of land out of cultivation, nor sensibly 
 affect rent. The prosperity of the agriculturist does not depend 
 upon the miserable resource of custom-house regulations. Though 
 these were swept away, the excellence of our soil, the skill of our 
 husbandmen, the wealth of our commercial and manufacturing 
 classes wiU ensure the continued prosperity of agriculture. Those 
 who investigate the matter will find that the existing regulations 
 respecting the com trade are little less injurious to the agricul- 
 turists than to the other classes. 
 
 This is what Mr. M'Culloch says ; and he, I am 
 informed, is a land-owner as well as an author. 
 
 I will now refer to Mr. Tooke, the able and ex- 
 perienced writer on this subject, and one whom the 
 
300 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Right Hon. Baronet delights to cite. I quote from 
 his work published in 1840, in which alluding (pp. 
 43, 44) to total Repeal he says : — 
 
 Although, however, there is every reason, founded on the 
 experience of that period (1834-6), and on other grounds which 
 it is not here the place to enter upon, that at a range of prices 
 of about 45s. for wheat there would be no just cause for appre- 
 hending any diminution of the breadth of arable land, unless the 
 land were to become, as I believe it will with the growth of 
 population become, applicable to more valuable productions than 
 corn ; it would form no valid reason for perpetuating on the 
 country the infliction of the Corn Laws. At the same time, if 
 it could be fairly shown that the growing lands of this country, 
 constituting any considerable proportion of those destined for the 
 supply of food for the community, could not be continued under 
 cultivation, except at prices much higher than those of the foreign 
 grower, such difference might be a ground for rendering the 
 transition more gradual ; and the degree or extent of difference 
 should serve as a guide for determining the gradations by which 
 that difference should be reduced. But from all the information 
 which I have been able to collect, not omitting that which the 
 Agricultural Eeports of 1833 and 1836 by the Committees on 
 Agricultural Distress of the House of Commons, and of 1836 by 
 the Committee of the House of Lords, are calculated to afford, I 
 am firmly persuaded that the difference is very inconsiderable, so 
 inconsiderable as not to form a valid objection to a very early 
 resort to the only system which can hold out the prospect of 
 security, to farmers in their leases, to landlords in their incomes, 
 and to the public m having their supply of food divested of an 
 impost which is felt grievously by the consumer (not to mention 
 the other grievances attending it), while it adds little, if at all, to 
 the permanent income of the producer. 
 
 And now, having Mr. Tooke's book in my hand, 
 I will just finish the passage that the Right Hon. 
 Baronet partially quoted the other night in order 
 to show the danger of depending upon foreign 
 countries : and one that the House wiU see was 
 
HOUSE OF COMJIONS. 301 
 
 written not exactly for that purpose, but rather to 
 show the poHcy of Free Trade. Mr. Tooke says : — 
 
 No one can be more alive than I am to the circumstance 
 that within certain degrees of longitude and latitude, extending 
 over the central parts of the contment of Europe, there is, in the 
 majority of seasons, a prevalence of weather of the same general 
 character, of propitiousness or unpropitiousness, to the growth 
 and gathering of the corn crops, as prevails in this country. But 
 this circumstance, instead of being an argument, as by some 
 persons it has been set up to be, against a free trade in corn, is 
 the strongest ground in favour of it. An extension of the radius 
 of our habitual supply to the north and south-east of Europe, to 
 parts of Asia bordering on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, 
 to Egypt, and, above all, to the United States of America, would 
 greatly mitigate the effects of visitations of peculiar inclemency 
 of weather prevailing simultaneously in this country, and within 
 a certain range on the continent of Europe. 
 
 So much, then, for the opmion of theoretical 
 writers. But do they differ from the practical men 
 whose opinions are deemed of most weight in this 
 House, when they give it as their opinion that little 
 land would go out of cultivation, and none out of 
 use if the trade in food were free ? And in estimating 
 that the price of wheat would be between 40s. and 
 48s. per quarter if restrictions were removed ? What 
 was the evidence given before Committees in 1836 ? 
 I wiU read the opinions expressed before them by one 
 or two witnesses. Mr. Bennett, a land agent and 
 farmer, was interrogated on the subject : — 
 
 Do you think, with reduction of rent and the reduction of 
 prices, the farmer can cultivate his land at a profit ? — Looking to 
 the seven years back, and having taken those farms under very 
 low prices, I have not a question that some may do it profitably, 
 and I have no doubt some will. 
 
 At what price do you estimate wheat for the next seven 
 
302 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 years ? — If I was going to take a farm myself, I should not expect, 
 nor would I calculate for the next seven years, to have wheat 
 above 6s. to 6s. a bushel. 
 
 Will the Duke of Bedford's tenants, who have re-taken those 
 farms, be able to pay the rent for which they have just agreed, 
 with wheat at 5s. a bushel ? — I think they will. I think the 
 majority do not expect to see it at much more. 
 
 I adduce evidence of this sort to shovsr that there 
 is nothing violent or dangerous in the propositions 
 of those who advocate the total repeal of the Corn 
 Laws. And I will trouble the House with one more 
 extract from the same Report for this purpose : — 
 
 Supposmg that mutton had borne the same proportionate 
 price when wheat fell to 40s., do you think the Scotch farmer 
 would then have been enabled to make a good living? — The 
 Scotch farmer would have tried something else than wheat ; he 
 would have extended his grass cultivation. 
 
 And if the price of barley had been also reduced ? — Those are 
 all regulated by the demand of the manufacturing and commer- 
 cial classes. 
 
 Thus, then, we have the evidence of statesmen, 
 of landed proprietors, of theoretical writers, and of 
 farmers, to prove that there is no real danger to be 
 apprehended to the country from the repeal of the 
 Corn Laws. This is the case that I had in the first 
 place to make out in support of my Motion for Free 
 Trade. 
 
 We next have to consider the other ground on 
 which the Corn Laws are rested : namely, that the 
 land-owners bear exclusive burdens, and that the Corn 
 Laws are maintained as compensation to them. The 
 first evidence that I shall adduce on this point is 
 that which cannot be disputed : the admission of the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 303 
 
 land-owners themselves. And here I would remind 
 the House of what the Right Hon. Baronet the Member 
 for Dorchester said on this point ; for I now look 
 upon him as the personification of Protection ; and 
 as a stanch Protectionist he is more trusted, perhaps, 
 by cormtry gentlemen than any one else. 
 
 I heard the Right Hon. Baronet make a speech 
 on the Malt Tax in which he referred to the Corn 
 Laws ; and in that speech he said that the Malt 
 Tax is the only locus standi that the landed interest 
 have for the Corn Laws. I have just referred to the 
 debate, and I find that he was correctly reported. 
 After asserting this connection between the Malt Tax 
 and the Corn Laws he went on to state that he for 
 one should consider that if the Malt Tax were re- 
 pealed, the Tithes commuted, the Poor Law reformed, 
 and a portion of the Countj'' Rates thrown upon the 
 Consolidated Fund, that then the total repeal of the 
 Com Laws would be irresistibly forced upon the 
 House. 
 
 I will not go mto the question of the Malt Tax 
 upon this occasion further than to call attention to 
 the enormous injustice to the community of im- 
 posing the Corn Tax to indemnify the landlords for 
 the Malt Tax, the removal of which they think might 
 enable some of their lands to be more profitably 
 employed. Does anybody dispute for a moment 
 that the community pays more for beer on account 
 of the Malt Tax ? And could greater injustice be 
 imagined than to compel them to pay more for bread 
 in order to indemnify the land -owners for what they 
 
304 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 suffer through the Malt Tax ? What is to mdemnify 
 the community for the two taxes : the tax on their 
 bread as well as the tax on their beer ? 
 
 But now what has actually occurred with respect 
 to those other changes the accomplishment of which 
 the Right Hon. Baronet thinks would irresistibly 
 force the question of total Repeal upon the House ? 
 The Poor Law has been reformed in the manner 
 most beneficial to the land-owner; a great portion 
 of the County Rate has been cast on the Con- 
 solidated Fund, and Tithes have been commuted for 
 Rent Charge. Therefore, according to the Right Hon. 
 Baronet's own doctrine, there remains but the Malt 
 Tax between him and his obligation to vote for the 
 total repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 
 And does any man suppose that the community 
 would not gladly submit to the charge of four and 
 a half millions a year — the amount of the Malt Tax — 
 to get rid of the incubus of the Corn Laws acting as 
 they are with a tenfold pressure upon all their means 
 and energies ? 
 
 And was there ever such a pretext for a great 
 national burden as the local charges that are named : 
 the County Rate, the Highway Rate, and so on ? 
 These are for local purposes ; and they are locally 
 beneficial to the proprietors and occupiers them- 
 selves. What would be the value of land with- 
 out highways, how could they bring their produce 
 into market, and take back manure to restore the 
 land without them ? The Right Hon. Baronet the 
 Member for Tamworth said that the bread of the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 305 
 
 whole nation ought to be taxed to relieve land- 
 owners from the Highway Rate ! Surely the words 
 escaped him unawares ! Suppose a parallel case : 
 what would be thought of a tax upon land-owners to 
 indemnify people who live in towns from the pay- 
 ment of Borough Rates, and Poor Rates, and Police 
 Rates ? And yet why are they to have these to pay 
 for as belonging to themselves and the bread tax 
 besides in order to indemnify the land-owners for 
 paying what equally belongs to them ? 
 
 Moreover the County Rate is not an exclusive 
 burden. I have been told that the town for which I 
 sit pays 1,200/. a year towards that Rate. What is 
 to indemnify them for this charge as well as for the 
 tax on their food ? 
 
 Again, the Tithe is now nearly all commuted 
 for Rent Charge, so that it is little or no grievance 
 to the cultivator as it was formerly when he had a 
 tenth of his gross produce taken, and was conse- 
 quently often prevented from making improvements. 
 
 But what can be more rude than such an in- 
 demnity for such a charge when we have no certain 
 account rendered of the amount of the land that is 
 Tithe free, or of the proportion of the Tithes belong- 
 ing to the land-owners themselves ? I am informed 
 that one-half of the land of the United Kingdom is 
 Tithe free, and one-fourth at least of the Tithes is in 
 lay hands. However, the better way of testing the 
 point as it rests upon a ground of justice, is whether 
 any landed proprietor can show any claim to com- 
 pensation in any Court of Justice ; whether he can 
 
 VOL. I. X 
 
306 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 say that the repeal of the Corn Laws would injure 
 him by means of Rent Charge for which the Tithe is 
 commuted and which varies with the prices of pro- 
 duce ; and whether he can say that he did not take 
 or buy his land subject to the charge, or whether his 
 land is not Tithe free. 
 
 Once more, if the Corn Laws are a compensa- 
 tion for their local charges why do we not hear 
 whether they are justly proportioned ? Why is not 
 the amount of these charges and the advantage of the 
 Corn Laws placed side by side in a regular account 
 so that the public may be satisfied that they are not 
 paying more than they need ? We know that it is 
 because the Corn Laws are a burden to the pubKc 
 out of all proportion to the burden alleged on the 
 ground of these local charges ; and we also know 
 that durmg the last twelve years though great re- 
 ductions have taken place in the local charges none 
 have been made in the Corn Laws, but that on the 
 contrary they have become more oppressive than ever. 
 Show me then the justice of what is called Protec- 
 tion. 
 
 Is it claimed on any other ground ? We ought 
 to hear it if it is. I trust that this question of Pro- 
 tection will be well sifted. What does it mean ? Is 
 it to support an mterest by law when it cannot 
 support itself? And if so can it be universally 
 done ? If it cannot how can it be just ? Is it fair 
 or richt to protect land and not to protect labour ? 
 But who ever thinks of protecting the artisan or 
 mechanic against the improvements of machinery ? 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 307 
 
 And yet there is not really any difference between 
 preventing the public from having access to fertile 
 soil for cheap and abundant food in order to uphold 
 the fortunes of landlords, and preventing the com- 
 munity from deriving the advantage of the steam- 
 engine in order to keep and to rear a class of 
 mechanics whose labour would be superseded by the 
 adoption of this power. 
 
 A short time since, in opening the ' Travels of 
 Humboldt,' I found a circumstance mentioned that 
 well illustrates the absurdity of this claim to Pro- 
 tection. Humboldt refers to a class of men who 
 had earned their living for nearly two centuries by 
 carrying passengers in baskets on their backs over 
 the Andes but whose occupation ceased when the 
 Government made regular roads passing through the 
 country. Immediately the Government made the 
 roads these men were up in arms against them for 
 thus encroaching upon their interests, and prayed 
 for Protection against good roads and in favour of 
 their baskets. Is there anything more absurd or 
 monstrous in the claim to protect the bad clay soil of 
 this country against the wants and well-being of the 
 whole people who could be provided by free access to 
 the produce of good land, than there is in the claim 
 recorded by Humboldt on behalf of bad roads and 
 baskets ? 
 
 But perhaps there is some other ground on which 
 this claim can be rested ! We may well be prepared 
 for anything after what fell from the Eight Hon. 
 Baronet the Member for Kent the other night. 
 
308 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Perhaps we shall hear that land- owners pay more 
 towards the general taxation than other people ; and 
 that on this account the tax on food is just. Antici- 
 pating this possibility I cannot do better than read 
 from a petition to this House the case of a labouring 
 man who complained of the proportion of his scanty 
 pay that was taken for the Revenue. And then let 
 it be judged whether the land- owners pay a greater 
 proportion of their income to the State than the poor 
 man pays. 
 
 The case is that of Wilham Blaxland, of Birming- 
 ham ; and the petition shows that he uses weekly two 
 ounces of tea, two ounces of coffee, eight ounces of 
 sugar, three pounds eight ounces of meat, seven 
 pounds of flour, seven pints of ale, a quarter of a pint 
 of brandy, and one ounce of tobacco ; the cost of 
 which, freed from Tithe, Corn Customs, and Excise 
 Duties, would be 2s. 4f c/. But with these taxes these 
 articles cost him 7s. 7^d., being a weekly tax of 
 5s. 3§(i., amounting in the year to 13/. 13s. 6d. The 
 average rate of wages in this county be it remem- 
 bered is under lis. a week. 
 
 I mention this case in order that people, after 
 connectiag it with the known fact that the Customs 
 and Excise yield more than 75 per cent, to the 
 Revenue, may judge with what justice land-owners 
 allege as an excuse for Com Laws the undue weight 
 upon themselves of the general taxation. Clearly 
 the Corn Laws are nothing less than a purely arbi- 
 trary act, resting solely upon the particular interests 
 of those who profit by them at the expense of the 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 309 
 
 community. They are said to be simply a question 
 between land-owners and manufacturers ; but in truth 
 they are a question between the owner of the soil and 
 every other consumer in the community ; a question, 
 in fact, between the interest of about 30,000 persons 
 in raising the value of about fourteen million of acres 
 of arable land and every other interest almost that 
 could be named. 
 
 This is anything but a mere manufacturing ques- 
 tion. What the interest of the manufacturers in the 
 question is it is easy to state : the manufacturer 
 loses a good customer at home on account of his cus- 
 tomer's means being exhausted in paying too much 
 for food, and he loses a profitable customer abroad 
 by not being allowed to exchange his goods for grain ; 
 but the manufacturer has no mterest in lowering the 
 price of food in order to reduce wages. If this were 
 his interest in order to get labour cheap, he could not 
 be better off than at present, for wages were never 
 before so low : low wages are but too often the con- 
 sequence of food being dear, because of the numbers 
 who must on this account lose their employment. 
 
 With respect to its being a farmer's question, I do 
 not believe that there is a single one of the land-owners 
 whom I am now addressing who honestly believes 
 that his tenants have any real interest in. the Corn 
 Laws. And I say that he cannot believe it if only 
 for this reason: he knows that if ever he has a farm 
 to let there are twenty farmers offering to take it. 
 Now how can the farmers with such competition 
 among themselves avoid offering the highest rent, or 
 
310 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 be able to get more than the average rate of profit 
 for their own capital, and how can it be an advan- 
 tage to them to pay more instead of less for the use 
 of the land ? High prices can be no object to them 
 for high prices require a greater outlay ; and if they 
 have to pay more for seed, more for servants, more 
 for horses, more for Poor Rates, they will require 
 larger capital to engage in farmiag, which, though it 
 may tempt men with insufficient capital into this 
 business or exclude men of small capital from it, 
 can never be the means of procuring a higher rate 
 of profit. 
 
 The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam- 
 worth once said that the Corn Laws are a labourer's 
 question, and doubtless they are. I have always 
 thought them peculiarly so ; more so than that of 
 any other class ; and fortunate indeed it is for those 
 who maintain them that the labourers do not see it 
 as clearly as others see it for them. 
 
 In this country, where capital is abundant and 
 the demand for labour naturally great, the general 
 condition of the labourer must depend upon the sacri- 
 fice he has to make to obtain food. Why is a labourer 
 in the United States so much better off than he is in 
 England ? Because ia the first place he has no diffi- 
 culty to get food ; and capital being abundant and 
 a wide field existing for its employment, his labour 
 is in demand. But why is food plentiful in America ? 
 Because it can be produced with but little labour 
 owing to easy access to good land ; but it is not 
 because of the extent of territory or the mere un- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 311 
 
 occupied soil that plenty prevails ; it is because by 
 little labour a man can procure food ; and this is 
 precisely what would be the case in England if Free 
 Trade were allowed with grain-growing countries. 
 
 A man by devoting his labour to manufactures to 
 exchange for food might obtain food as easily as by 
 occupying new land and tilling it himself. Let any 
 one test this by the supposed case of an island that 
 we could appropriate, rising up in the Channel : is 
 there any doubt that if our labourers could occupy 
 it, or if it were inhabited by men wanting clothes who 
 had an excess of food, our population would be much 
 under the same circumstances as the people of the 
 United States would be if we could exchange freely 
 "with them ? And would not the man whose labour 
 was in request and who paid little for his food be in 
 a condition either to toil moderately or to possess 
 himself of the comforts or luxuries of life ? But once 
 let the labouring man have to make great sacrifices 
 for food, or be unable to exchange freely what he 
 produces for food, and I would ask whether anv 
 condition could be found lower than his ? 
 
 It is said, however, that the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws, by throwing land out of cultivation, would 
 deprive labourers of employment ; and in order to 
 exaggerate the evils of such a result it is stated as 
 if every quarter imported from abroad would displace 
 a quarter grown at home : some indeed go so far as 
 to suppose that so much would be imported that 
 vast tracts of land would be thrown out of cultiva- 
 tion. But what is the utmost that the most sanguine 
 
312 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Repealer expects to come in under a system of Free 
 Trade ? Barely more than four million quarters. 
 And there is no reason why this should displace as 
 much grown at home. In the first place, the defi- 
 ciency of the supply for the existing wheat- consuming 
 population is nearly two millions ; but the calcula- 
 tion is that one-third of our population do not eat 
 wheaten bread owing to the price, which if lowered, 
 or if the people's condition improved, would greatly 
 increase the consumption. 
 
 How, then, is the land to be deteriorated in value 
 in this country, seeing that our arable soil does not 
 amount to more than 14,000,000 acres, and grows 
 about 20,000,000 quarters of wheat ? How can 
 the addition of 4,000,000 quarters of w^heat from 
 abroad, giving a greater stimulus to manufactures 
 and commerce and thus improving the consuming 
 power of the population, increasing income and the 
 demand for land, cause such deterioration in the 
 value of land ? Why, is not the bare contempla- 
 tion of the land losing its value in this small 
 island with a dense and industrious population full 
 of resource and adding to its numbers every hour, 
 positively ludicrous ? I should like to hear the plan 
 that the most ingenious man could devise for keep- 
 ing down rent if commerce and industry continued 
 productive! I really believe that the only way in 
 which it could be effected would be by some such 
 means as the Right Hon. Baronet's Scale : in its 
 anti-social and anti-commercial operation this may 
 have the effect of driving capital and skill out of 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 313 
 
 the country, whicli, as they are the source whence 
 land derives its value, may by their withdrawal 
 effect a serious depreciation in land that wUl be 
 aggravated by the burdens consequent on maintain- 
 ing an unoccupied people. But allowing the enei'gy 
 and enterprise of the nation to have full scope, what 
 people could be more fortunately circumstanced than 
 those who own the soil of this country ? For what, 
 then, are our land-owners jeoparding all this ? For 
 what are they imperilling all the institutions so 
 favourable to themselves ; losing the esteem of their 
 fellow-countrymen ; making all men politicians ; and 
 driving the middle and working classes to think that 
 they are misrepresented and defrauded, and that the 
 present system is maintained simply for the benefit 
 of a class ? It all seems to be for the vain hoj)e of 
 giving to their estates by artificial means a value that 
 natural circumstances would give them in a tenfold 
 degree. 
 
 The only ground on which they can rest for 
 keeping their bad land in cultivation — the ground that 
 it gives employment to the poor, is no argument 
 for the Corn Laws : it is only a reason why some 
 provision should be made for the existing generation 
 of poor who are so dependent. For to keep these 
 bad lands for ever in cultivation is to rear for ever 
 a class of men with interests adverse to the com- 
 munity. And this applies equally to the occupiers 
 of the land, a generation of whom may have come 
 into existence since the last Corn Laws were passed 
 who would otherwise have occupied themselves, or 
 
314 FKEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 who would have employed their land diiferently but 
 for the continuance of these Laws. 
 
 The continuance of the monastic institutions 
 might have been, and probably was urged upon the 
 same ground as the Corn Laws : namely, that they 
 provided for the poor ; but if so, the plea was un- 
 heeded except so far as it led to our public provision 
 for the poor. 
 
 However, even if greater consideration for an 
 interest affected by an improvement is required in 
 one case more than in another, this is no ground 
 for the continuance of a bad land system ; though 
 it may, possibly, be for compensation or for some 
 special provision which the transition might require. 
 But I contend that there is no such case here with 
 respect to the poor ; for the Corn Laws do not pro- 
 vide the poor with employment in the agricultural 
 districts. It has been shown in the analysis of the 
 last Census that but for the town and the manufac- 
 turing districts 350,000 people would have been left 
 in the Agricultural Market who could not have been 
 supported and who would have dragged down the 
 rest to the lowest level. 
 
 I will no longer try the patience of Hon. Mem- 
 bers ; but I will leave to my many friends on this ques- 
 tion to supply what I have omitted in developing the 
 case to the House. 
 
 I have attempted to show that under the present 
 circumstances of this country there cannot be any 
 advantage in the Com Laws and that there is not 
 any pretext for them ; that there is now a deficient 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 3 15 
 
 supply of food for the people ; that but for these 
 Laws the people have the means of procuring an ample 
 supply, and that obstructed by them they are suffering 
 the severest privations ; that commerce is impeded ; 
 that employment is withheld ; and that, identified as 
 it is with the ability to consume, our Revenue is 
 yearly declining. On these grounds I beg to move, 
 That the duties on corn do now cease and determine. 
 When I say ' now,' I mean to mark the coinci- 
 dence of my opinions with those of the petitioners to 
 this House who pray to be instantly relieved from 
 the operation of the Corn Laws ; though, of course, 
 if it can be shown that the public would suffer in any 
 way from the immediate removal of restrictive duties, 
 we are neither so foolish nor so bigoted as still to 
 insist upon this taking place ; nor if it can be shown 
 that greater good could be derived from their gradual 
 than from their immediate abolition should we reject 
 the benefit. But at this time, and considering the 
 unreasonable attitude assumed by those who profit by 
 the Com Laws, I think the people quite right to call 
 for their entire and immediate abolition ; and unless 
 any clear, certain, and definite evil can be pointed out 
 as hkely to result from it, I hope that those who 
 are for total Repeal wUl not shrmk from supporting 
 my Motion. 
 
316 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 XI. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 18, 1842. 
 
 When the Budget for 1842 was brought forward the Revenue fell short 
 of the expenditure for the current year by two millions and a half, and showed 
 a deficiency of upwards of ten millions for the previous sixyears. Sir Robert 
 Peel's financial scheme to meet this state of affairs was a new departure. 
 The distress in the country and the depression in trade were no longer due 
 to foreign wars, joint-stock banks, and such like. The Ministerial policy 
 openly admitted them to have been caused by restrictive laws operating on 
 our Foreign Trade: commercial reform alone could effect their removal; 
 and the price to be paid for the remedy was an Income Tax of Id. in the 
 pound. The Budget of 18i2, at a first glance, might almost have been 
 taken for a Free Trade Budget ; but though the reform it inaugurated com- 
 prised the reduction of import duties and the removal of restrictions upon 
 no less than seven hundred and fifty articles, embracing almost the whole 
 range of the tariff, there were two fatal exceptions — corn and sugar : the 
 great scheme of financial reform commenced with the egregious omission 
 of the duties on corn, the real root of all the misery and suffering of the 
 people, and the ever increasing depression of trade. Lord J. Russell 
 moved an Amendment condemnatory of the Income Tax, which after a 
 debate of four days was rejected on April 13 by a vote of 308 to 202. The 
 debate on ihe Amendment, proposing that the Bill should be read on that 
 day six months, during which Mr. Villiers made the following speech, took 
 place on April 18. The Motion was lost by 285 to 188. 
 
 The Right Hon. Baronet's speech is, I think, in 
 one respect the most important speech that he has 
 made since he announced his financial scheme; for 
 it has done what his former speeches have left un- 
 done : it has given the public some insight into 
 what his general views and intentions are with regard 
 to the peculiar tax that he is about to impose on the 
 country. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 317 
 
 His scheme has been so ingeniously contrived 
 and his speeches have been so cleverly composed that 
 up to this moment he has succeeded in leaving many, 
 and particularly those who are opposed to him, in 
 doubt as to the course they should pursvxe. 
 
 There are many, and I am among the number, 
 who are far from satisfied with the justice of our 
 present system of taxation, who think that it is op- 
 pressive to the poor and partial to the rich and who 
 are strongly in favour of transferring from poverty 
 to property the burdens of the State. There are 
 many who see nothing to approve in the particular 
 purpose of this tax and the occasion selected for its 
 imposition, but who yet think that it is the recogni- 
 tion of a sound principle as regards taxation, and 
 that it will be wise to endure its inconvenience with 
 the view to its general application ultimately — always 
 assuming, however, that this is the view taken by 
 the Right Hon. Baronet, and that he is alive to the 
 evils of which we complain, and is not wanting in 
 will to apply the remedy. 
 
 The speech that we have just heard will dissi- 
 pate this illusion at once and enlighten the country 
 as to the Right Hon. Baronet's views of the object 
 of a property tax. Called upon to-night to vin- 
 dicate his consistency in opposing a property tax 
 in 1833, the Right Hon. Baronet candidly tells us 
 that the ground of his opposition then was one 
 that he would maintain now ; that a property tax, 
 in lieu of the indirect taxes that exist now and of 
 which the people complain, is one that the Right 
 
318 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Hon. Baronet would join any party in opposing. No 
 man would be found more firm in opposing any 
 substitute for the duties on malt, on soap, or any 
 of tlie indirect taxes now existing ; and the Right 
 Hon. Baronet has distinctly said that all that he pro- 
 poses the Income Tax for now is as one means of 
 maintaining the public credit and of getting more 
 revenue, without the least intention of ever proposing 
 it as a substitute for any other tax, much less for any 
 indii'ect tax now pressing upon the people. 
 
 This is candid and intelligible, though calculated 
 a little, I should say, to influence the impression 
 to which the Right Hon. Baronet has alluded as 
 prevailing in the country in favour of his plan, but 
 which, I think, has been produced by the vague, 
 uncertain, and inconsistent things that hitherto have 
 been said on the subject of taxing property, and that 
 pervade every speech the House has heard fii-om the 
 Right Hon. Baronet, in which he seems to mark out 
 the rich as the proper objects of taxation and expresses 
 sympathy with the necessities of the poor. 
 
 It will, however, be clear hereafter that this is a 
 tax imposed not in lieu of any other tax, not in 
 any spirit of benefiting the poor, but in aggravation 
 of every other tax and because other means are not 
 relied upon for getting the money required. It ought 
 certainly to settle the doubts now floating about on 
 this side of the House as to whether evU should not 
 be supported that good may come. The Right Hon. 
 Baronet unquestionably has at last confirmed the 
 view that I have entertained from the beginning : 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 319 
 
 that the financial difficulty which it is intended to 
 remove results from the financial and commercial 
 system maintained so long and opposed so long in 
 this country, and that this tax is really to meet its 
 necessary consequences. 
 
 It is the peculiar system which places the people 
 of this country under the two -fold contribution of 
 paying taxes to the State and taxes to particular 
 classes that has caused our present condition ; and, 
 as one of those who have long since deprecated the 
 principle and predicted the eff'ects of this system I 
 can only consent to relieve the difficulty by removing 
 its cause. 
 
 The fact is, this peculiar system of finance which 
 makes the Revenue dependent upon the general condi- 
 tion of the people is now breaking down. Its failure 
 is caused by Monopoly in food and restraints upon 
 trade : the former by exhausting men's means in 
 enhancing the cost of subsistence, and the latter by 
 narrowing the field for employing their labour. 
 The Revenue now begins to feel its efi"ects, and the 
 struggle is really between the means of maintaining 
 pubhc credit and maintaining Monopoly. 
 
 The actual question that the House has to examine 
 is whether public credit is to be upheld by abolishing 
 Monopoly or by imposing fresh taxes ; and I am 
 glad to think that this year at least those who take 
 my view of the influence of Monopoly upon the 
 Revenue are spared the trouble of jjroving what they 
 have so often said ; for, as a fact, it may this year be 
 numbered with those many admissions on which the 
 
320 KKEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire has 
 declared that there has been perfect unanimity. 
 
 Last year I was tauntingly asked what the Corn 
 Laws had to do with the Budget ; and when I replied 
 that they were not only a heavy tax imposed upon 
 the community for a class, but that inasmuch as the 
 article corn was essential to life it was also the first 
 tax people had to pay, and that upon the amount 
 of this class tax depended what was left for the 
 State, my assertion was treated as a vision of the 
 Free Trade party — one of course to be neglected. 
 This year, however, we hear of the influence of the 
 cost of Uving upon the value of an income, and the 
 connection between harvests, which govern the cheap- 
 ness and dearness of food, and the Revenue derived 
 from Customs and Excise ; and notwithstanding all 
 the vulgar tirades that have been uttered against 
 commerce and manufactures, sohcitude is now ex- 
 pressed at the languor of commerce while the im- 
 portance of easing the springs of industry with a view 
 to revenue is freely admitted. 
 
 It is well that it should be so. It is high time 
 for the old note to be changed ; but the thing that 
 the House has now to feel is that these admitted 
 truths ought to be acted on and applied. I, for one, 
 have yet to learn that they are very earnestly enter- 
 tained : if they were we should not, I thuak, have 
 seen such a Corn Bill as that which has been passed ; 
 nor have had such an Income Tax proposed ; nor 
 would so small an instalment of what is due to 
 the people have been offered as the proposed tariff. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 321 
 
 Indeed, I think it incumbent upon tliose wlio have 
 proposed this Income Tax to declare explicitly to 
 what they attribute the declining tendency of our 
 Revenue, what they think of its cause and its 
 character ; for upon this turns our prospect of the 
 duration of the new tax, and also of the proportion 
 of the burden not being increased. 
 
 It is not because it is a direct tax that I oppose 
 it : this is not the objection that I or my constituents 
 have to it. Many of my constituents indeed think, 
 and, in my opinion, think justly, that property is a 
 good test or evidence of a man's ability to contribute 
 to the support of the State ; and I have received a 
 memorial from those politically opposed to me ap- 
 proving of the principle of the tax qua property tax ; 
 though greatly objecting to the rude and reckless 
 manner in which it is proposed to be applied : assess- 
 ing all income without reference to its origin or its 
 liability. 
 
 It is not enough to say in the present state of 
 our finances that the deficiency occurred under the 
 late Government and that the supporters of the late 
 Government cannot therefore object to supply the 
 deficiency in any way proposed. This view does not 
 satisfy those who stand aloof from both parties. They 
 believe all the harm that Whigs say of Tories or that 
 Tories say of Whigs when the charges have reference 
 to matters of which they have no other cognizance. 
 But the people are pretty well satisfied as to those 
 who have so long had the management of their aff'airs ; 
 they have ascertained clearly enough by whom the 
 
 VOL. I. Y 
 
322 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Government has been administered that has brought 
 them to their present state. And, if I mistake 
 not, the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider 
 the state of the hand-loom weavers a short time 
 since, decided that point in their Report upon the 
 condition of the unfortunate section of our fel- 
 low-subjects whose state they were led to connect 
 with the operation of our commercial laws. They 
 seem to have been led into a reflection upon the 
 character of the Legislature in consequence : they 
 reminded those who rule this country that the 
 Government resides in a small minority of the com- 
 munity, who occupy entirely one branch of the 
 Legislature and greatly preponderate in the other, 
 and whose interests are entirely identified with one 
 description of property ; and they cautioned them on 
 the importance of their acts being above the suspicion 
 of partiality, as such a Government could only rest 
 upon public opinion, which would not sanction legis- 
 lation observed and known to produce the misery and 
 sufferings of the masses of the people. 
 
 This was announced on authority to be the real 
 Government of this country ; and the people being 
 neither Whig nor Tory, were disposed to think that 
 the Monopolies springing out of what they termed 
 class legislation had so far exhausted their means 
 and restricted their energies as to be answerable for 
 the decline of this great industrial nation. 
 
 The people, too, will soon learn that the tax now 
 proposed to be imposed on income is only a mode of 
 escaping one of the temporary, but necessary, conse- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 323 
 
 quences of the system. The people are not so dull 
 and not so easily deluded as Hon. Members oppo- 
 site think when they assume that the labouring 
 classes believe the Income Tax to be favourable to 
 them because it apparently falls on those above them. 
 I have heard the opinions of many of them upon the 
 subject ; they say : ' We shall take no part in the 
 matter. We are not deceived by the fallacy that 
 because the Income Tax is imposed upon those 
 above us we are not affected by it. If the capital 
 of those above us is taxed or diminished we must feel 
 it, so far as we are dependent upon the capital, in the 
 diminished demand for our labour ; but then, on the 
 other hand, we are not blind to the effects of making 
 the middle classes discontented as a means of extend- 
 ing our political power.' They believe thoroughly 
 that the resources of this country have been wasted 
 by Monopoly ; and the arguments that are used in 
 favour of part of this scheme, when the importance 
 of reduciug the cost of living is dwelt upon, leave 
 them no doubt of what has hitherto been lost to this 
 country by that means. 
 
 This being the case, if pennanent improvement 
 is intended, why has the root of the evil not been 
 avowed and struck at ? What hope is there of ever 
 discontinuing this tax or of makmg any other pro- 
 ductive without its being done ? Why has a tax 
 been resorted to that above all others must necessarily 
 aggravate the evil, if the deficiency springs from the 
 poverty of the people ? And why have you not looked 
 round to see if those who profit by Monopoly con- 
 
324 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 tribute their due and fair proportion to the State ? 
 That source at least should have been exhausted be- 
 fore resorting to a tax that all must admit is oppres- 
 sive to men in trade, and unfair to professional men. 
 
 And is there not yet a fund untouched by these 
 unequal taxes ? It is but a few weeks since I myself 
 enumerated nearly one million that has been taken off 
 the landed classes, and out of pure favour to them. 
 Has anybody denied that they were exemptions favour- 
 able to that interest, and that if the House were to 
 reimpose them under the present increased value of 
 real property they would probably yield more than 
 that million now ? Has any satisfactory reason been 
 assigned why the duty imposed upon the descent of 
 personal property is not attached to the succession of 
 freehold property? Some subtlety was, I know, em- 
 ployed the other night to make it appear that some 
 landed property is assessed for this purpose ; but can 
 any man doubt that a very large sum might be 
 annually derived from this source ; and that it is 
 foregone merely to favour the landed proprietors ? 
 
 But the Right Hon. Baronet says to-night that 
 in spite of all that has been said we have a deficiency 
 to make up, and that there is no certain way to 
 do so within his knowledge but that of taxing the 
 income of the people. The Right Hon. Baronet, 
 however, had already precluded himself from making 
 such a statement by an admission which he made the 
 other night — though not called upon to make it : the 
 Right Hon. Baronet said that a very considerable 
 Revenue might be collected immediately on foreign 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 325 
 
 sugar (now almost proHbited) by lowering the duty 
 upon it ; which of course is true and well known ; 
 but it is a truth that hitherto has been met with the 
 taunt that it is one of the theories of the political 
 economists for getting revenue by reducing duty. 
 
 And the Right Hon. Baronet knows, and now 
 admits, that it is the fact, and that to-morrow, if 
 he choose, the coffers of the Treasury might be re- 
 plenished by allowing the people to consume foreign 
 sugar. 
 
 I should like to place the necessity and the policy 
 of an Income Tax as explained this evening before 
 the country, and to let sensible and humane people 
 judge fairly upon this issue : whether the expecta- 
 tion of preventing slavery in a foreign country by not 
 consuming their produce is sufficiently well grounded 
 to warrant the policy of precluding the people of this 
 country from the advantage of a cheap necessary, 
 and for imposing a fresh and heavy burden upon 
 them. I have seen a comment upon this policy in a 
 foreign paper that I cannot but hold just. They call 
 it the laughable hypocrisy of the English. Under 
 aU circumstances I think the description is really just ; 
 for few people believe that it will succeed, and most 
 people beheve that it is insincere. If there is any sin- 
 cerity in all this talk about slavery the real sacrifice 
 to make is, to refuse to send goods to a slave-pro- 
 ducing country; for it is to buy goods that sugar is pro- 
 duced; it is to get these goods that men are retained 
 in slavery ; and it is notorious that the slave-holding 
 communities are now becoming some of our best 
 
326 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 markets, and that if they were to reject our goods 
 or to raise the duties unfairly against us we should 
 be more disposed to go to war with them on that 
 account than to commend them for adopting this 
 means for preventing slavery. 
 
 I, however, am not indifferent to the opinion of 
 many benevolent men who think that dealing with 
 slave countries is a means of encouraging slavery ; 
 but I know many who no less benevolent, no less 
 zealous or serviceable in opposing slavery, are of 
 opinion that this partial restraint on the trader with 
 such countries is calculated to do harm rather than 
 good. Let us see, for instance, how this policy may 
 work for the continuance of slavery. What do you 
 practically tell the West Indian proprietary? Why, 
 that as long as slavery continues in other countries 
 their Monopoly is safe. Thus they have a strong 
 interest in maintaining slavery ; and they have some- 
 thing else : they have very great influence over the 
 British Government — they always have had and they 
 continue to have it. How then can any Government 
 better secure the adherence of these partisans than by 
 not making an effective remonstrance with the Slave 
 States which they now profess it to be their inten- 
 tion to make ? The West India influence may and 
 probably will depend upon their not doing it. 
 
 Again, it is urged with great justice that if those 
 countries saw that sugar would be produced more 
 cheaply by free labour than by slave labour and 
 that our markets might be suppHed by countries in 
 which there are no slaves (which they might be), this 
 
.HOUSE OF COMMONS. 327 
 
 would be more lilcely to influence tlie slave-owning 
 countries, now said to be wavering on the question of 
 slavery, tban any impotent threat or feeble remon- 
 strance on our part to withdraw our custom — more 
 important to ourselves than to them. 
 
 Is it not notorious that the sugar grown in those 
 parts of the world where labour is free, is brought to the 
 European markets as cheaply and as good as that from 
 Brazil? There is the sugar from Manilla, from Java, 
 from Siam, from Cochin- China, all produced by free 
 labour, all supplied to different countries at one-half, 
 or less than one-half the price of our plantation sugar. 
 You say that we are bound by treaties with Brazil not 
 to let in the sugar from those countries on better terms 
 than it is introduced from BrazU. But this is pre- 
 cisely the reason for opening our ports to all. The 
 only country where there is a chance of getting 
 any terms for slaves is Brazil. I know that in that 
 country there are districts or provinces where the 
 proprietors doubt the importance to themselves of 
 maintaining slavery, attended as it is with expense 
 and insecurity. But they are a minority in the 
 Legislature of the country ; and if you succeed in 
 making them abolish slavery you cannot let in their 
 sugar unless you get the people of Cuba to do the 
 same ; of which, as you know, there is not the 
 remotest chance : they profit too much by it from 
 the manner m which the slave trade is carried on. 
 And I believe that by treaty you are bound not to 
 show more favour to trade with Brazil than you do 
 to that with Cuba, 
 
328 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 What a fancy, then, it is, if it be an honest specu- 
 lation at all, that by refusing to allow their produce 
 to come out of the warehouses of this country you 
 can abolish slavery in those countries ! For it is a fact 
 that you allow it to come here and that you export 
 it refined, and that, moreover, you receive payments 
 for other manufactures by means of other slave 
 produce sent here or to other countries on your 
 account. And what vast sacrifices you are making 
 for this purpose at all times, and particularly at this 
 moment, when you are about to visit the trading 
 classes with an odious assessment, sooner than get 
 revenue not by the addition but by the remission of 
 duty on this article ! I should really like the question 
 to be rested on this issue as the remission of the duty 
 would obviously be an easy, advantageous manner of 
 supplying the Revenue. 
 
 To maintain the immediate credit of the country 
 there are, I believe, ready means in the equalization 
 of the Stamp Duties and other duties now imposed 
 with a view to favour the landed class, and by the 
 reduction of diiFerential duties on tropical produce. 
 For what I say of sugar applies to all differential 
 duties. Diff"erential duties imply that the same 
 article is brought to this country at different prices 
 from the different countries where it is produced ; 
 and their object is to preclude the community fi'om 
 consuming the article at its lowest marketable price ; 
 though if the community were not subject to such 
 restrictions the article would be more generally con- 
 sumed, and, the duty being collected upon the whole 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 329 
 
 amount consumed, the Revenue would be increased 
 and the cost to the consumer diminished. 
 
 Looking, then, at the Right Hon. Baronet's whole 
 scheme I object to the Income Tax. Part of it I 
 consider as mischievous and uncalled for, and imposed 
 without any admission of the real cause of the defi- 
 ciency, and without a view to its removal ; and, 
 therefore, likely to be continued beyond the time now 
 intended. 
 
 I do not, however, underrate the importance of 
 those changes ia our wretched commercial system 
 that are proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. I 
 like the disturbance of the system, and expect that it 
 win lead to a wider and far more beneficial change 
 than any yet proposed. 
 
 I should like to see more changes made in the 
 spirit in which the Timber Duties were handled. 
 The change effected in those Duties was, I am satisfied, 
 very beneficial and one, I think, that at present is 
 underrated in the country. I do not speak altogether 
 hi ignorance on the subject, for I once called the atten- 
 tion of the House to it, and at the time I made a 
 very full inquiry into the whole case. I was really 
 surprised to find the extent of the evil produced by 
 the Timber Duties ; and the vast importance to an 
 old, cleared, densely-peopled, manufacturing country 
 hke this, of a cheap and abundant supply of wood. 
 Excepting food, there is not, I believe, anything for 
 the supply of which the circumstances of this country 
 render us dependent on other countries, of such 
 importance to us as timber. I may be wrong, but 
 
330 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 I doubt if there will be so great a sacrifice of revenue 
 as people imagine from the change ; for the same 
 quantity of timber that used to come from Canada, 
 and that came, though bad on account of the differ- 
 ential duty, will now come from the Baltic and pay 
 25s. instead of 10s.: there will be, then, an increase 
 of duty of 150 per cent, upon that portion of the 
 timber, 
 
 I can mention another circumstance that wUl 
 probably secure to the consumer the full advantage of 
 the remission of the duty which some say we shall not 
 have in consequence of the price rising in the Baltic 
 countries. I think that this rise will not occur if those 
 countries again have to apprehend competition with 
 Canada, which they will with the duty entirely re- 
 mitted ; and therefore there wUl be an increased 
 supply from the Baltic without increase in price. 
 
 In saying this, however, with regard to the 
 advantage of the remission of the duties on tunber, 
 I say nothing in favour of an Income Tax proposed 
 under the present circumstances. I am speaking of 
 the change in a commercial point of view. And 
 speaking generally, I should say that if a temporary 
 deficiency of revenue were occasioned by making 
 some beneficial change in our commercial dealings 
 with other countries with the prospect of ultimately 
 recovering the loss both by improved commerce and 
 in revenue — I should say that in this case a loan by 
 issue of Exchequer Bills or otherwise to meet the defi- 
 ciency would be justifiable, provision beiag made 
 for the repayment of such loan upon the success of 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 331 
 
 tlie experiment. I do not think that loans are justi- 
 fiable in time of war ; for in this case the money is 
 certain never to be recovered and the debt is con- 
 sequently rendered permanent. But when changes 
 are made in the spirit and with the purpose of the 
 reduction now proposed in the Timber Duties, the 
 country would justify and approve a loan. 
 
 This, however, is positively the only instance that 
 I know of in which any great sacrifice of revenue for 
 a commercial purpose or with the view to benefit the 
 consumer is expected in the new tariff The tariff is 
 said to be the boon in return for the tax, yet most of 
 the alterations in the tariff are, as the Right Hon. 
 Baronet has told the House to-night, changes from 
 prohibitive duties to those that can be collected. In 
 fact, so far from making a sacrifice, the tariff is really 
 an appHcation of the principle that recognizes the 
 Revenue to be dependent on the easy access of the 
 consumer to the articles that are taxed ; the only 
 sound principle to apply as long as we continue the 
 present system of indirect taxation, and while taxes 
 fall on the articles that the general consumer demands. 
 And the fault that I have to find with the scheme of 
 the Right Hon. Baronet is that he does not carry this 
 principle out, and that by his Income Tax he will 
 even diminish the ability of the people to consume 
 those articles on which the Revenue depends. If the 
 Revenue sinks because the people are poor, the object 
 should be to increase their means, not to add to 
 their burdens. The Government will now no longer 
 deny the connection between the cost of living and the 
 
332 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 ability to consume. It certainly has not been recog- 
 nized in the Corn Bill ; but it is their argument in 
 support of the tariff that makes more striking the 
 anomaly of a scheme that purports to relieve the 
 consumer and to add to the Revenue, yet does 
 nothing to reduce the price of that which he must 
 pay for and consume before he can touch any other 
 article : and a scheme in which the connection 
 between the price of corn and the amount of revenue 
 is established beyond a doubt ; but in which while 
 it is sought to supply a deficiency nothing is done 
 to cheajjen that article, the cheapness of which deter- 
 mines the state of the Revenue! I believe that I 
 can demonstrate this by Official Returns. I will 
 read to the House a comparison between the price 
 of wheat and the produce of revenue in 1835, 1836, 
 and 1837, contrasted with 1838, 1839, and 1840 :— 
 
 I. Wheat Avbeage. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 In 1835-7 the average of the 3 years was . 47 10 
 „ 1838-40 „ „ „ . 67 2 
 
 The price of wheat therefore rose 40 per cent, during the 
 last three years. 
 
 II. Total Eevenub. 
 
 The gross Eevenue of the United Kingdom amounted in the 
 aggregate to — 
 
 £ 
 
 In 1835-7 159,851,000 
 
 „ 1838-40 159,240,000 
 
 Decrease .... 611,000 
 
 The population increased at least 4 per cent, between these 
 three-year periods. Had the Eevenue increased in like ratio, 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 3B3 
 
 it would have been in the last three years, 166,205,000/., or 
 6,965,000/. more than it was, being at the rate of 2,321,000/. per 
 annum virtually lower than in the former period. 
 
 III. Customs and Excise. 
 
 The revenue for Customs and Excise in 
 
 the United Kingdom 
 
 was : — 
 
 £ 
 
 In 1835-7 
 
 117,333,000 
 
 „ 1838-40 
 
 116,996,000 
 
 Decrease . . . . 
 
 337,000 
 
 The total Excise duties decreased, in the same period, from 
 47,117,000/. to 46,610,000/. 
 
 Had the Excise and Customs Eevenue increased with the 
 population it would have produced 122,025,000/., or 4,692,000/. 
 more, by which amount it virtually fell in the latter period. 
 
 IV. Malt, British Spirits, Tea, and Sugar Duties. 
 
 These are the four duties that produce the largest revenue. 
 They produced — 
 
 £ 
 
 In 1835-7 51,830,000 
 
 „ 1838-40 49,289,000 
 
 Decrease .... 2,541,000 
 
 This shows a decrease of nearly 5 per cent. ! 
 Had these duties increased with the population they 
 would have produced 53,903,000^., or 4,614,000/. 
 more than they did; which shows a virtual falling off 
 of 1,538,000/. per annum. 
 
 From this I deduce the fact that concurrently 
 with the rise in the price of wheat there has been 
 a virtual falling off ia the Revenue to the amount 
 of 2,321,000/.; nearly the same amount as that of 
 the actual deficiency that has occasioned the Income 
 Tax. 
 
334 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 This falling off of revenue has taken place not- 
 withstanding an increase of duty paid on the im- 
 portation of foreign corn to the amount of 1,477,000^. 
 during the last three years, over the former three 
 years ; and above one-half of the falling off has taken 
 place on articles most used by the industrious classes. 
 
 I will show this by another table : — 
 
 I. Geoss Eevenub of the United Kingdom. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 £ 
 
 Tears. 
 
 £ 
 
 1835 . 
 
 . 52,589,000 
 
 1838 
 
 . 52,979,000 
 
 1836 . 
 
 . 54,973,000 
 
 1889 
 
 . 53,345,000 
 
 1887 . 
 
 . 52,287,000 
 
 1840 
 
 . 52,916,000 
 
 II. 
 
 Geoss Excise and Customs Ebvenue. 
 
 
 Excise. 
 
 Customs and Excise. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1835 
 
 . 15,229,351 
 
 38,378,000 
 
 1886 
 
 . 16,587,992 
 
 40,747,000 
 
 1837 
 
 . 15,300,406 
 
 38,208,000 
 
 1838 
 
 . 15,493,810 
 
 38,714,000 
 
 1839 
 
 . 15,488,248 
 
 38,996,000 
 
 1840 
 
 . 15,628,818 
 
 39,286,000 
 
 III. 
 
 Malt, Beitish Spieits, Tea 
 
 and Sugae. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 £ 
 
 Tears. 
 
 £ 
 
 1885 . 
 
 . 16,844,000 
 
 1838 
 
 . 16,658,000 
 
 1836 . 
 
 . 18,366,000 
 
 1839 
 
 . 17,341,000 
 
 1837 . 
 
 . 16,620,000 
 
 1840 
 
 . 16,290,000 
 
 Here then, it is established that the Revenue of 
 this country is necessarily connected with the cheap- 
 ness and abundance of corn. And what is the remedy 
 for the ever-increasing deficiency of the Revenue? 
 Clearly to secure a constant, regular, abundant supply 
 
SOUSE OF COMMONS. 335 
 
 of corn, thereby ensuring cheapness and improving 
 the ability of the consumer to consume the articles 
 on which you expect your tax. 
 
 But do the Ministers come forward with a full 
 and ample admission that the Laws that have made 
 food dear and scarce and given Monopoly in other 
 articles of general use, are at the bottom of our 
 commercial embarrassment and financial difl&culties ; 
 that preparation must be made for the total change 
 of a system so fraught with evil ; and that though 
 some inconvenience may be expected at first, a per- 
 manent advantage being in view, reason and good 
 sense call for an endurance of the evU for a while ? 
 No such thing ! They bring forward a Corn Bill. And 
 not professing to reheve distress, not admitting the 
 evil that the Corn Laws have produced but assert- 
 ing the advantage of such Laws, denying the injustice 
 of our present system of indirect taxation and pledg- 
 ing themselves to its continuance, they further propose 
 to diminish every man's means of expenditure by 
 taking a certain proportion from his income. With the 
 view, as they say, of maintaining public credit they 
 call upon people to support their Measure because 
 it is a tax upon property which is a just tax. 
 The Income Tax does not raise any question of a 
 property tax such as many men would wish to see 
 and many here to-night would support : a property 
 tax in lieu of taxes pressing upon the poor, upon 
 industry, and upon the productive capital of the 
 country, and one that would fairly place the burdens 
 of the State on those best able to bear them. 
 
336 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 The present Bill is a plan to provide for one of 
 the conseqnences of a system that is a constant cause 
 of evil, and to relieve those who profit by the system 
 of their only drawback in its continuance ; and there- 
 fore so long as the system continues it will necessitate 
 the retention, if not the augmentation, of the tax 
 now sought to be imposed in addition to every other. 
 
 The people of this country are increasing rapidly ; 
 no provision is made for the increase of the food 
 that is their first necessary of life ; each year their 
 difficulty to consume other articles will increase ; 
 and by the imposition of an income tax the other 
 taxes wUl become less productive. The people want 
 more food, more trade, and fewer taxes. And what 
 has been done for them? You have retained a Corn 
 Law which makes food scarce ; and you have done 
 nothing to extend trade with the two best customers 
 that England now possesses — the United States and 
 Brazil : you refuse to take the slave produce of one, 
 and you will take only the slave produce of the other. 
 Thus with her people unemployed you leave this 
 country seeking fresh markets for her industry ; and 
 without any improvement of her Foreign Trade you 
 impose a tax on income that must embarrass the 
 trade at home. 
 
 I say this to show that there is no reason for 
 people to expect any immediate advantage from a 
 change that, at present, I look at as little more than 
 a fanciful disturbance of the old system and a very 
 capricious application of a better principle. If any 
 advantage is to be expected from the change, it must 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 337 
 
 arise from the future action of the Right Hon. 
 Baronet who wUl see the importance of going for- 
 ward, and next year will introduce the reforms that 
 he refuses this year, as now he accepts principles that 
 he repudiated in the past. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
338 EEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 XII. 
 
 MANCHESTEE, January 8, 1843. 
 
 Sir Eobert Peel's omission of the Corn Laws from his financial scheme 
 of 1842 gave a fresh impetus to the Anti-Gorn-Law League movement. A 
 fund of 50,000Z. was set on foot to carry on the agitation for Repeal, to 
 which subscriptions in thousands poured in from all the great manufac- 
 turing towns like Leeds, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Rochdale, 
 &c.,and in multitudinous small sums flowed in from insignificant boroughs, 
 villages, and out-of-the-way hamlet?, all alike driven at last to action by 
 the deadly pressure of the Corn Laws. This roused the fears and fury of 
 the Monopolists and Protectionists. The ' Quarterly Review ' took the lead 
 with a long article of abuse in which it denounced the League as the 
 most dangerous conspiracy of recent times, and was vigorously supported 
 by most of the leading journals of the day. On January 3, 1843, by 
 which time the failure of the Government's attempts to revive the industry 
 of the country, and to put an end to the distress, were made apparent 
 by an appalling deficiency in the quarter's Revenue — the Excise alone 
 showing a falling off at the rate of three millions per annum — Mr. Villiers 
 went down to Manchester and vindicated the constitution of the League 
 at the weekly meeting of the Association. The chief leaders of the 
 movement were present at the meeting, which was a very large one, 
 and Mr. Cobden, in seconding Mr. Mark Philips's vote of thanks to Mr. 
 Villiers for his untiring exertions in the cause of Free Trade, reminded 
 all present how almost alone in Parliament and without support in the 
 country Mr. Villiers had, in the face of determined opposition and an 
 apathy if anything worse to contend with, ceaselessly looked after their 
 interests before they knew how to look after them themselves. 
 
 I FEEL extremely flattered at the consideration that 
 you show me. I wish that I had done, I wish that 
 I were able to do enough to deserve such notice. 
 Had my services corresponded with my zeal in this 
 cause, I might have been more worthy of your at- 
 tention ; but my single title to your regard is that 
 since I have been a INlember of tlie Legislature I have 
 
MANCHESTER. 339 
 
 striven to do everything that according to my judg- 
 ment it was in my power to do to further and pro- 
 mote the cause for which your great and spirited com- 
 bination here is formed. And I now come before 
 you with no other claim than that of bemg ranked as 
 the humble and disinterested advocate of the repeal of 
 the destructive Laws of which you complain, as the 
 friend of perfect freedom for this country in her com- 
 merce with every other, and as the undeviating and 
 consistent opponent of Monopoly of every kind. 
 
 It is from a conscientious conviction that this 
 course is right that I have hitherto acted ; and it is 
 because I believe that the system that you assail is 
 impolitic, dangerous, and wrong, that I intend to 
 persevere. So long as my services can still be made 
 available in co-operation with your great and spirited 
 efforts in this cause, I can only say that they shall be 
 most cordially rendered. 
 
 The friends of this cause must, I beheve, still 
 co-operate heartily wherever they are to be found : 
 we must not separate, for we must not disguise from 
 ourselves that the task that is imposed upon us is 
 not yet achieved — there are still great difficulties 
 before us. We must not repudiate assistance whence- 
 soever it is offered ; and we must conciliate hostility 
 wherever we find it, as far as we can do so con- 
 sistently with honour to ourselves, and with the 
 truth of the principles that we have espoused and are 
 pledged to uphold. 
 
 You have done great things for the cause in this 
 neighbourhood, in fact you have done wonders : you 
 
 z 2 
 
340 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 have contributed largely for the furtherance of the 
 principles you avow ; and you have produced dis- 
 tinguished men who, both in Parliament and out of 
 Parliament, have advocated perfect freedom of com- 
 merce. You have Mr. Cobden in the Senate, and you 
 have Mr. Bright in the field. And truly it does re- 
 joice me when I read and when I hear of the honours 
 with which they are covered and of the enthusiasm 
 with which they are received wherever they go. For 
 it shows that there are no personal rivalries, no local 
 jealousies, no political prejudices, intervening to mar 
 the course and progress of the cause that we are 
 pursuing. This cause is really far above the ordinary 
 level of party strife ; it is the cause of humanity, it is 
 the cause of the nation in future ; and every man who 
 cares for his country or wishes well to mankind 
 should accord to it his best ability and support. 
 
 I was grieved to be obliged to refuse an earlier 
 requisition to attend these gatherings ; but I am glad 
 that circumstances have allowed me to appear at 
 this moment, for it enables me to congratulate you 
 upon your progress, and to inform you of the im- 
 pression that your proceedings are producing at a 
 distance. I do not hesitate to say that you are daily 
 and hourly winnmg upon the public esteem ; that 
 your usefulness is becoming more generally acknow- 
 ledged ; and that people are seeing and saying that it 
 is by some such instrumentality as a National League 
 that this interested and selfish legislation can alone 
 be changed. 
 
 People generally think that you have wisely 
 
MANCHESTER. 341 
 
 occupied this vacant moment in the public mind by 
 bringing before them the facts and arguments of your 
 case. You have found men in a right mood for 
 learning the causes of their past embarrassments. And 
 I must say that the tone of tolerance and carefulness 
 as well as earnestness and decision that has pervaded 
 the language and proceedings of these meetings has 
 done much to conciliate opponents and bring over 
 honest and cautious men to your side. 
 
 For though I have not had the pleasure of being 
 among you, I have not been altogether idle, where 
 I reside, in seeking to learn the obstacles to the 
 progress of our cause with a view to remove them. 
 And I already have had occasion to see the success 
 of your labours : I find in the metropolis that from 
 fi-equent discussion people who had not before con- 
 sidered the subject are now familiar with the argu- 
 ments that expose the fallacies of our opponents ; 
 and if you will only persevere in the course that you 
 have hitherto pursued, you will fortify their minds 
 against those further fallacies that, I doubt not, are 
 now being prepared for the ensumg Session. 
 
 With respect to the object that the Members of 
 the League have in view in soHciting the aid and 
 pecuniary contributions of their friends, I have 
 never heard any right-minded man say aught of it 
 but praise, or wish it other than complete success. 
 You are not addressing men's passions, you are not 
 trafficking with their ignorance, you are not proceed- 
 ing secretly, or acting with violence ; you are deli- 
 liberately proceeding to address their understandings 
 
342 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 in a way to bring knowledge and information home to 
 the humblest persons in the country. You have seen 
 your opponents appeal to the lowest classes in the 
 country upon this subject and skilfully confuse their 
 minds ; and now you are about to bring the truth 
 within reach of all, and to give your opponents a 
 fair opportunity of establishing their case if they can. 
 Persevere in this course, and there will be no question 
 of your success — ^your victory will be certain. 
 
 I myself have already witnessed instances of the 
 result of your pubHcations : I allude specially to 
 the tracts that are now circulated by the League. I 
 have seen their influence upon men's minds. 1 have 
 heard men who have read those prize essays that have 
 recently been disseminated, express their astonishment 
 at the truths they contain. They had no notion pre- 
 viously that the persons who are said to be protected 
 by the Coim Laws could have such reason for opposing 
 them ; and that the tenants of the land for whose 
 benefit these Laws are said to exist could have put 
 their pens to paper to denounce them as a delusion 
 under which they had been suiFering. I have known 
 men receive tracts from the League, read them, be 
 convinced by them, and at once tend a subscription 
 to forward the cause. 
 
 This, in my opinion, proves the judgment with 
 which you are now acting, and justifies the course that 
 you are pursuing in defiance and regardless of the 
 opinions expressed by your opponents. Yes ! you may 
 venture to proceed in your course in spite of the Dorset- 
 shire squires. Lately they have done you the favour 
 
MANCHESTER. 343 
 
 of expressing their opinion of your conduct and cha- 
 racter. This I think is all to your advantage : it is 
 hkely to raise you in the people's esteem, for I know 
 not on what superiority of their own they presume to 
 cast aspersions on the character of the League. 
 
 To-day, as I was coming to this place, a person 
 who was travelling with me showed me some speeches 
 that had been made at a recent meeting in Dorset- 
 shire where they seem to have been chiefly occupied 
 with the proceedings of the League. Their first 
 charge against you is, if I remember rightly, that you 
 are warring against the spirit of the Constitution. 
 And in this I am not sure that they are not right ; for 
 I beheve that the spirit of the Constitution as now ad- 
 muiistered is manifested at the dinner-meetings of Dor- 
 setshire squires rather than in the redress of grievances 
 from which millions are sufi'ering. I have no doubt 
 that whatever so great a person as a Member for the 
 county of Dorset says to his fellow- squires passes for 
 proof as soon as it is uttered, and circulates as gospel 
 truth wherever he has influence. And he says that 
 he has never known a society so un-English in its 
 character, so odious in its object, and so contemptible 
 in its means as the Anti- Corn-Law League. It 
 struck me when I read this that even during my 
 Parliamentary career I had heard of societies far 
 more deserving of this character than the Anti- Corn- 
 Law League. And I think that there was one such 
 society to which some of the Dorsetshire squires 
 themselves, or some of their friends and connections, 
 might have belonged. I heard in Parliament only 
 
344 
 
 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 about five years ago of societies that administered 
 secret oaths, tampered with the army, held views 
 upon the succession to the Throne, and entrapped 
 humble men into their designs for the purpose of up- 
 setting the Grovernment. And so captivating were 
 the doctrines of this attempted league that many of 
 the nobility and clergy, together with one or two 
 bishops, were found to belong to it. These were not 
 corn associations certainly : they were Orange lodges. 
 And it struck me that the gentlemen who ride so 
 high a horse when they talk of the Anti-Corn-Law 
 League, might have remembered that many of their 
 political connections and friends were thought to 
 be members of these societies at the time I refer to. 
 
 And now I will tell the squires why I do not think 
 that the Anti-Corn-Law League ought to be con- 
 sidered un-English. In the first place, everything 
 the members of it do is open and above-board. They 
 complain of a great grievance ; they go forth into the 
 highways and say what the grievance is, and why 
 they complain of it. They arraign the rulers of the 
 country to then- face, thrown them upon their defence 
 before the world, and ask the country to judge of the 
 character of the cause by the nature of the defence. 
 
 I think that I could also tell these Dorsetshire 
 squires why this Anti-Corn-Law League is a Con- 
 servative institution. It is because the English 
 are not slavish or spiritless : they do not belong to 
 a race that ever was so ; and when they are con- 
 scious of being wronged, when they have a strong 
 sense of injustice, they must be heard or they wUl be 
 
MANCHESTEE, 345 
 
 felt. And it seems to me that even if the squires 
 were to succeed in stopping this national vent for the 
 expression of public opinion they would not convince 
 the people that the food Monopoly is a righteous 
 arrangement : they would simply induce them to find 
 some other mode of expressing their opinions ; and 
 one perhaps more inconvenient to the squires than the 
 Anti-Corn-Law League. 
 
 I think, moreover, that I could show these gentle- 
 men that the League is a justifiable institution, 
 and for this reason : it was formed only after every- 
 thing had been attempted in what might be called 
 a constitutional way to induce Parliament and the 
 public authorities to attend to the grievance, and 
 had failed. The people petitioned ; they asked to 
 be heard at the Bar of the House ; they asked for a 
 Commission of Liquiry ; they asked for a slight change 
 of the Laws ; they asked for a gradual change of the 
 Laws ; and everything was refused, and with exactly 
 the same stubbornness as the claim they now advance 
 is refused. And though the Legislature tells the 
 people when they agitate that they will not yield to 
 clamour, they have shown too plainly that they will 
 not yield to anything else. 
 
 At present they say that the object of the League 
 is odious ; odious to them, no doubt. But are the 
 members of the League the only persons who consider 
 the Corn Laws odious ? I want to know who there 
 is except the landlords, those distinctly mterested in 
 the Laws, who do not consider them odious. There 
 are many who do not belong to the League — who 
 
346 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 do not think the League genteel and therefore of 
 course do not belong to it — but who yet think the 
 Corn Laws very odious. Only a few years ago I 
 read m that great organ of the present Government, 
 the ' Times ' newspaper — the leading journal of Europe 
 — that the Corn Laws which we must not call odious, 
 are a combination of madness and inhumanity ,• and 
 that, so long as they continue, they are a sort of 
 rebellion against Providence for which the people at 
 large may be in daily expectation of some visitation. 
 These are the squires' Corn Laws. Latterly, within 
 a very few years, the same paper, the organ of the 
 same party, has declared that there is nothing out of 
 the despotism of the East that can be at all compared 
 to them ; so outrageous are they in character, so arbi- 
 trary in operation, and so prejudicial to the people 
 at large, that they are only worthy of Mehemet Ali, 
 and governments of the like order. 
 
 But the Dorsetshire squires alluded to this sub- 
 ject as if it was something just started by the League ; 
 as if they had never heard of it before. Why, one of the 
 most philosophical divines of Scotland,^ one of the most 
 intellectual men that I can name, and a Conservative 
 too, has come to the conclusion that the Corn Laws 
 literally foul the air of British society ; he says that 
 they are so monstrous in their character and conse- 
 quences that he can describe them only in that way. 
 
 In fact I do not believe that any intelligent and 
 disinterested man can be named who is an advocate 
 of the Corn Laws. You may find people who are 
 
 ' Dr. Ohalmers. 
 
MANCHESTER. 347 
 
 under the influence of self-interest who will advocate 
 them ; but I doubt whether a single disinterested and 
 intelligent speaker or author can be produced who 
 will say one word for the Corn Laws. Even landlords 
 who have brains in their heads and their title deeds 
 at home have given them up. 
 
 But then the Dorsetshire squires say your means 
 are so contemptible ! If so why do they talk about 
 them? Why are they always cackling about this 
 League? If it is ^ch a contemptible thing why do 
 they not let it die of its own insignificance ? Their 
 organs never cease filling their columns about it ; 
 never a day passes but this Anti-Corn-Law League is 
 brought before them ; and yet it is so contemptible and 
 insignificant that it cannot live many days ! Their 
 discussions seem to have reached a point that we 
 sometimes see attained in personal disputes when one 
 man having nothing more to urge resorts to abuse 
 of the winning side. And in our case this is really 
 a very cheering sign. It looks as if our discussions 
 were coming to a close, and we had the best of it. 
 
 In a recent publication upon this subject no less 
 than seventy pages are, I believe, devoted to your 
 abuse by an old opponent. That looks weU. It puts 
 me in mind of a story that Lord Brougham, I think, 
 used to tell of a case that he had on the Northern 
 Circuit. His client, who was the defendant in a cause, 
 had no case ; but this he did not like to acknowledge, 
 so he retained the most eminent counsel and delivered 
 him a brief which when looked into was found to 
 contain these instructions : ' No merits ; but please 
 
348 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 to abuse the plaintiff's attorney.' Now, this is some- 
 thing like the answer that the old ' Quarterly ' got when 
 he tapped at the door of Monopoly to ask what he 
 was to say next October after the shock that Mono- 
 poly had experienced at headquarters in the early 
 part of the year. His instructions were : ' No merits ; 
 but please to abuse the Anti-Corn-Law League.' And 
 it is impossible to deny that he has earned his fee : so 
 long a yarn about nothing at all was, I should say, 
 never produced by any lawyer. There is, however, 
 perhaps this difference between the two cases, that in 
 the former the Court itself, when the advocate came 
 in, might not have been prepared for the issue 
 being changed, and might have given a verdict for the 
 defendant, thinking that the character of the plaintiff's 
 attorney was the only thing in question ; but, fortu- 
 nately for us, the public is fully apprised of what will 
 be the tactics of our opponents ; and I have not the 
 least doubt that when we meet in Parhament we shall 
 not hear a word said about the Corn Laws : the 
 merits will all be put in the background, but the 
 people's attorney — the Anti' Corn-Law League, will 
 be brought very prominently forward. And I consider 
 this, as I said before, a very favotirable point to have 
 brought the discussion to. They have sunk the ques- 
 tion altogether and have begun to abuse the advocates 
 on the other side ; and they have only one other 
 thing to do, and that they do not dare to do : to put 
 down discussion altogether. It has been suggested, 
 I dare say, in the Cabinet ; but it would be incon- 
 venient generally. 
 
MANCHESTER. 349 
 
 The fact is, if we had an Act of Parliament to sup- 
 press discussion, it might include other societies that 
 are very laudable : the Royal Agricultural Society, 
 for example. The Royal Agricultural Society is very 
 much like the Anti-Corn Law League so far as detail 
 and arrangement go, but there is this difference be- 
 tween them : the Royal Agricultural Society is to im- 
 prove the breed of cattle ; the Anti-Corn-Law League 
 is to improve the condition of the people. 
 
 Certainly, some unworthy practices have been 
 attempted lately in the metropolis. I believe that 
 they were attempted in the provinces formerly, but 
 they are not now : I mean sending persons to create 
 confusion at public meetings, which is only another 
 way of preventing discussion. It is quite clear that 
 there is no honesty in an interference of this kind ; 
 and the purpose of it is defeated, as far as I can 
 observe, by the eflfect it produces ; for it only makes 
 all the persons who are disturbed by such a pro- 
 ceeding warmer partisans in the cause for which we 
 are now met. Discussion will therefore go on ; and 
 with discussion we need not fear for the result. 
 
 Indeed, as far as I have been able to observe, we 
 have not much difficulty now with our regular oppo- 
 nents ; they do not seem to me to show much fight 
 this year. But there are some persons, nomimally our 
 friends, who are generally very dangerous characters : 
 they complain that the Anti-Corn-Law League and 
 those who uphold it are very extravagant m their 
 claims. They say : ' You want complete justice, 
 but you ought only to ask for an instalment of 
 
350 EREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 it.' Now, I fancy that I have been considering this 
 question as much as any one ; and I think that the 
 reproach is just as unreasonable as they allege our 
 claims to be. Because there is not any immediate 
 prospect of our getting a little justice, I do not see 
 what we could gam by only asking for a little ; and 
 it is really of consequence for us to show that we are 
 in earnest upon this question. And as we do attach 
 to it the greatest importance, believing that the wel- 
 fare of the people at large depends upon it, it is 
 worthy of consideration whether the part that we 
 take is judicious and the best calculated to realize 
 the object we- have in view. It is after the most 
 mature deliberation that I fail to come to any other 
 conclusion than that it is not at all unreasonable 
 that we should demand the total repeal of the Corn 
 Laws, and that the people should have complete 
 justice rendered to them without delay. 
 
 Now, observe what is the state of the question. 
 There are persons who say : ' If you will be more 
 moderate in your demands, if instead of a total repeal 
 of these Laws you would just ask for a fixed duty, 
 you would improve your position very much, and there 
 would not be so much agitation in the country.' But 
 what say the rulers of the country, whom I take to 
 be the landlords? Do they entertain the notion of a 
 little justice, of a fixed duty? No ; they say : ' Of all 
 the fallacious, of all the roguish, of all the deceitful 
 things ever proposed, a fixed duty is the worst.' 
 They say : ' Sooner let us have a total repealer ; we 
 would have him a hundred times sooner than a fixed 
 
MANCHESTER. 351 
 
 duty man ; the project is WMggish from beginning to 
 end ; we will not concede it.' And they bring for- 
 ward a scheme that all mankind, except themselves, 
 are opposed to — the Scale. The present Government 
 say : ' We will not have a fixed duty ; we will only 
 have the Scale.' But we wUl have neither — neither the 
 fixed duty nor the Sliding Scale ; we demand total 
 Repeal. And surely we have with us, against the 
 Scale, the largest party that is to be foimd in the 
 country ! So that when we defeat the Grovernment 
 upon the Scale, as they will not take a fixed duty, 
 they must take total Repeal : there is nothing else 
 left for them. 
 
 And we have the farmers joining our ranks ; for, 
 hi that sturdy, manly sort of way that one would 
 expect from them and that belongs to their character 
 they say: ' We thought that we had a right to be pre- 
 ferred to the rest of the community ; we thought that 
 we were to be put upon rather a better footmg than 
 anybody else ; but we find that we were deceived. We 
 do not want to injure the rest of the community ; and 
 unless we get some benefit from it, away with all 
 Protection — fixed duty and all.' Farmers have come 
 to say : ' We find that this Scale does not give us the 
 promised Protection ; therefore we have no objection 
 to Free Trade.' 
 
 Just now, in fact, we have attained a point at 
 which everybody seems to be divided between the 
 relative merits of the systems of Protection and Free 
 Trade. Protection now means the Scale that every- 
 body is decidedly against ; and Free Trade is the 
 
352 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 alternative. Why, then, should we not stick to a 
 principle that is intelligible to everybody ; that we 
 have professed hitherto ; and that there is no reason- 
 able ground for abandoning? 
 
 I really cannot understand any ground for advo- 
 cating a fixed duty except that which appears to be 
 passing in the mind of the present Liberal leader of 
 the House of Commons, Lord John Russell. He 
 seems disposed — and as a politician and a leader he no 
 doubt occasionally must be — to hold the candle to a 
 certain gentleman. I should have no objection to 
 hold that light myself if it were likely to be of any 
 use, if we were likely to obtain justice by doing 
 so ; but then this gentleman will not accept what we 
 oflfer. He says : ' I repudiate a fixed duty ; I won't 
 have your light upon any terms.' I then say : ' Why 
 concede a great principle ? Why concede in the ab- 
 stract what the whole community want, without pros- 
 pect of any practical result whatever being thereby 
 obtained ? ' And until I can see some better ground 
 for abandoning the principle upon which we started, 
 and upon which we have united a greater number 
 of people than any other principle was capable of 
 uniting, I shall adhere to it : namely, the abolition 
 of all Protection, and, above everything, a perfectly 
 open trade in the necessaries of life. 
 
 But independently of this consideration, I am 
 quite convinced that there are many here connected 
 with the Foreign Trade of this country who know 
 how great is the importance, the necessity now indeed, 
 of removing every obstruction to that trade. With 
 
MANCHESTER. 353 
 
 respect to the rivalry that is growing up against us 
 in every foreign country I should like to hear whether 
 any person who has experience of what is going on 
 abroad or who knows what sort of competition it 
 is to which the productive power of this country 
 is exposed in foreign countries — I should like to hear 
 whether such a person thinks that anything less 
 than entire freedom of trade can enable us to meet 
 that competition ? It is my firm belief, from what 
 has been disclosed to us by persons on the Continent, 
 that nothing short of this will do. If I wanted 
 any farther testimony than what my own senses 
 afford in favour of Free Trade, it would be furnished 
 by what our manufacturing rivals on the Continent 
 themselves say. There is nothing that they view 
 with such horror and apprehension as Free Trade 
 in this country. I assure you that the An ti- Corn- 
 Law League is just as unpopular with the manu- 
 facturers on the Continent as with the agriculturists 
 at home. From morning to night they are bless- 
 ing English landlords and English Corn Laws. They 
 say : ' Our continued salvation is in these Laws ; they 
 have enabled us to start up here as a great pro- 
 tected interest ; and so long as they last we shall 
 flourish ; but we none of us know what will become 
 of the capital that we have invested in this interest, so 
 soon as there is Free Trade in England.' 
 
 I saw an intelligent manufacturer in Russia this 
 year, and I asked him what he thought would be the 
 effect of such a change. He said : ' The instant that 
 there is Free Trade in corn in England, there will 
 
 VOL. I. A A 
 
354 TEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 be an increase of the cost of living on the Continent ; 
 and that will be a great disadvantage to us : it will 
 make our home market worse, as the people will have 
 to be fed at a greater expense than they are now ; and 
 the instant you open your ports to the produce of 
 Russia and the north of Europe you will find them 
 objecting to their own tariffs, at present designed to 
 exclude your manufactures.' 
 
 I speak from high authority with respect to the 
 Russian tariff — almost a prohibitory one — when I 
 say that were our ports open and trade free, a very 
 large proportion, at least, of the aristocracy in Russia 
 who desire to send their produce to England, would 
 be opposed to their own tariff, to which they are 
 at present reconciled by the concurrent existence of 
 our tariff here. And they would then be exactly in 
 the same state that we are in ; they would see that 
 they could export more of their commodities if they 
 took English manufactures in return. Now, though 
 we consider the Russian Government a very arbitrary 
 one, it is far from insensible to the interests of those 
 who rely upon it. And it is the authoritative opuaion 
 of all those with whom I have conversed on the 
 subject, that if our ports were open and the trade 
 in grain free the Russian tariff would hardly last a 
 year. 
 
 In considering the sort of opposition that we may 
 expect in a continued advocacy of a Free Trade policy, 
 I would just refer to a form of obstruction that lately 
 has been frequently advanced in the organs of our 
 opponents : I mean the assertion that we ought not 
 
MANCHESTER. 355 
 
 to utter a word on the subject of the Corn Laws this 
 year. We are told that an experiment is going on ; 
 that we must not interfere with it but allow it to 
 work ; that it would be very unreasonable to breathe 
 a syllable about Repeal because a change was made 
 in the Corn Laws last year. 
 
 The other night I was looking into the ' Standard,' 
 the paper that represents the Grovernment, and there 
 I found how long the trial is to last : they allege 
 from ten to twelve years. And they add that it 
 would be especially unreasonable to say anything 
 about the Corn Laws next year. Now, I want to 
 know why the Anti-Corn-Law League is not to say 
 anything. Did they call for the change enacted in 
 the Corn Laws ? Did they approve of it when pro- 
 posed ? I remember that when it was first an- 
 nounced my friend here ^ rose up and pronounced it 
 what many felt, what all here feel it to be — a perfect 
 mockery. He denounced it in plain language to the 
 House, though, of course, it was thought very bad 
 taste. Members were very much shocked at what 
 he said : that was not the way to speak in the House 
 of Commons. But my Hon. Friend had the courage 
 (and it really does require great moral courage to rise 
 up and do justice to the people, and thereby offend 
 the taste of the House of Commons) to condemn the 
 Government measure ; which, indeed, 1 also thought 
 a perfect mockery, and I have never changed my 
 opinion. He voted against it, and I acted with him 
 in every stage of the Bill because I thought that if 
 
 ' Mr. Cobden. 
 A A 2 
 
356 B-REE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 it passed we should be called upon to abide by ar 
 experiment, and be told that there was something at 
 work that we must not disturb. 
 
 But what do the very organs of the party who 
 proposed the new Laws say ? They say now, I 
 know not with what object or authority, that there 
 is not a single advantage derivable from them that 
 would not have happened under the others ; and 
 I believe that not a single intelligent man could be 
 found who would not tell us, that not one evil had 
 occurred under the old Laws that might not occur 
 under the new. We shall be told next Session, I dare 
 say, that the price of wheat has very much fallen ; 
 and as the Corn Laws have been changed, the coin- 
 cidence of two things wUl be sought to be connected 
 as cause and effect. 
 
 However, we must bear well in mind what these 
 party organs say : they want to conciliate their agri- 
 cultural friends, and they say that nothing has been 
 done. This is true ; nothing has been done. Not 
 one particle of grain has come into the country that 
 would not have entered under the old Laws, and 
 entered at a duty of Is. while now it has paid 8s. 
 This is the only difference that I know of And I 
 never met with any man, be he Tory or Leaguer, who 
 does not maintain that everything that has happened 
 under the present Laws would have happened under 
 the old. Why then are we to try any experiment ? 
 What are we to expect ? 
 
 There was some sense in keeping the old Laws 
 when the people had been got to believe that restricted 
 
MANCHESTER. 357 
 
 trade increased the quantity of food ; that when food 
 was scarce the reward of labour was greater ; and 
 that the public credit depended on the Protection of 
 the agricultural interest : this was something like 
 argument, or ground to stand upon. But the first 
 Minister of the country abandoned all that ground 
 when he declared it to be true that the people increase 
 in such numbers that they cannot be adequately 
 suppUed with home produce. 
 
 He said also that the proprietors of the soil of 
 this country have no right to be protected as a class ; 
 he said it last year. And he said something else, 
 which is very important and which we shall not lose 
 sight of : he said that by reducmg the price of food 
 the burden of the general taxation would be much 
 less. He told the people that by his arrangement 
 with the tariff and the Corn Laws he would lower 
 the price of food so much that they would not feel 
 the Income Tax. Well then, I say, this admission 
 is no ground for a new Corn Law, in fact it does 
 away with the ground for any such Law at all ; 
 because if the people are not sufficiently suppKed at 
 home they ought to be able to get what they want 
 from abroad at the very lowest rate and at the very 
 best advantage. If the proprietors of the soil have 
 no right to be protected they can have no reason to 
 complain when we propose the abolition of Protec- 
 tion Laws ; and if the taxation of this country is 
 felt more or less according as the price of food is high 
 or low, upon what conceivable pretext do you pre- 
 vent it fi'om being as low as possible ? 
 
358 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel says upon this matter that the 
 less people have to pay for food the more they will have 
 to pay for other things, and therefore they will feel 
 the taxes less. But just see how this applies. What 
 are the other things upon which the people spend 
 their surplus income ? They are the things that are 
 taxed, such as tea, coffee, soap, sugar, wine, malt, and 
 spirits ; and the more they buy of these things the 
 more the Revenue gains. Now the Revenue has been 
 sinking of late years, and why ? Because the price 
 of food has been high and the people have not been 
 able to invest in these other taxed articles. Just 
 look at the consequences : the price of food having 
 been high of late years on account of the Corn Laws 
 people could not consume other articles ; the Revenue 
 dependent on the price of food has fallen off ; and 
 we supply the deficiency by an Income Tax. You 
 see then the close connection that there is between the 
 Income Tax which you are all so fond of and the 
 high price of food caused by the Corn Laws. 
 
 And remember, I am not using my own argu- 
 ment but that of Sir Robert Peel. It is Sir Robert 
 Peel who says that if food is low you will not feel 
 the Income Tax. If, then, food were always low 
 and you were without an Income Tax you would 
 not feel other taxes. And in speaking upon this 
 matter I ventured to lay before the House a state- 
 ment which I believed unanswerable, showing that 
 the deficiencies of the Revenue did occur during the 
 three years in which food was so enormously high. 
 And I say that under these circumstances the Income 
 
MANCHESTER. 359 
 
 Tax ought not to have been imposed, and the Corn 
 Laws ought to have been repealed. I say that the 
 Revenue suffered because the condition of the people 
 was bad ; and that therefore the condition of the 
 people ought to have been improved. 
 
 I do not know where any man can have learnt 
 that an Income Tax will improve the condition of 
 the people : if men are too poor to travel, it is not by 
 raising the toll that you will get their money. You 
 get the Revenue of this country by the people's con- 
 sumption, by what they expend ; if they are too poor 
 to expend, it is not by taking their income that you 
 will make them expend more. And in my opinion 
 the Government have committed a great mistake in 
 putting on an Income Tax at this moment. 
 
 It is dangerous to prophesy ; but last quarter 
 fulfilled the prediction that some gentleman ven- 
 tured to make that though the returns might show the 
 profits of a direct tax on income they would show also 
 a loss from other sources ; and in the October quarter 
 there was upwards of half a million lost from other 
 sources. To-morrow we shall see what the present 
 quarter gives ; I believe that it will be little better. 
 I believe that the instant the Income Tax was an- 
 nounced every man studied how he should save it. 
 Some turned ofl^ a servant, others laid aside a carriage, 
 or did something to save the new tax, and con- 
 sequently diminished their expenditure. The only 
 remedy was to have improved the condition of the 
 people. 
 
 The Minister should have endeavoured to discover 
 
360 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 where the people could have got more trade ; but pre- 
 cisely in those quarters where there was an opening he 
 has done nothing. In the United States and Brazil, 
 the two quarters where our trade might be most ex- 
 tended, nothing has been done. It seemed as if every- 
 thing was to be touched except the restrictions on 
 sugar and corn. And the trade with the United States 
 and the Brazils having been left as it was, the con- 
 dition of the people remains unchanged. 
 
 The condition of the people is not improved nor, 
 apparently, is there any likelihood that it will be ; 
 and hence I venture to express a doubt whether the 
 Grovernment will be able to supply the deficiency in 
 the Revenue as they anticipate. What did I see the 
 day before I left town ? I saw printed in the largest 
 letters in the chief organ of the Government, the 
 announcement that the Corn Laws passed last year 
 are to be considered a final settlement of the question 
 and that no further changes are to be made — the new 
 Laws under which, as their own organs say, every- 
 thing that occurred under the old will occur again ; 
 and your experience tells you what has been suffered 
 during the last five years from Laws that are it seems 
 now finally settled. 
 
 I ask any person who considers the thing im- 
 partially, whether, after this, we can adopt the re- 
 commendation of the Dorsetshire squires to show 
 ourselves no more and to give up our agitation ? 
 I myself cannot come to that conclusion. I can 
 only see that exertions are rendered more necessary. 
 The Legislature does not I fear pay such attention to 
 
MANCHESTEE. 361 
 
 the general interests of the community as will j ustify 
 them in taking no care for themselves. People who 
 have anything to do in this country are not fond of 
 agitation : it is only when imperious necessity forces 
 them from their business and their homes, to which 
 they would gladly return, that they come forward and 
 take a share in public affairs ; but with the prospect 
 they have before them of no real change being effected 
 in the Corn Laws, and of being required to wait until 
 an experiment of what is no improvement has been 
 made, no true friend can say : ' Cease to agitate.' I 
 am much more disposed to say : ' Continue to agitate ; 
 keep up your movement ; for you will get nothing by 
 remaining still.' 
 
 The cause of Free Trade is one of a peculiar nature : 
 it is not merely the cause of the moment or the place, 
 but of the future and of mankind at large. When 
 you consider it in all its bearings, in its ultimate con- 
 sequences, above all when you consider the friendly 
 relations that it tends to promote between men in 
 different climes and countries, you will see that 
 nothing that you can undertake is more likely to 
 spread the spirit of Christianity and to diffuse the 
 blessings of the earth among the nations of the 
 world. In short, I believe that the establishment 
 of Free Trade is the next great step in the progress 
 of civilization in this country ; and, therefore, I 
 cordially recommend the cause for your adoption, 
 trusting that you will never abandon it until you 
 have achieved the victory. 
 
362 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 DEUEY LANE THEATEE, March 22, 1843. 
 
 In March 1843 the League made London its headquarters ; and as 
 no other building of sufficient size was available, Drury Lane Theatre was 
 engaged for the weekly meetings of the Association. The first meeting 
 was held on March 16. At the next, on the Wednesday after, Mr. Villiers 
 made the following speech. Boxes, pit, and gallery were literally crammed. 
 It was, in fact, the greatest assembly that could be brought together in the 
 metropolis under one roof. The audience showed by their well-timed 
 cheers and comments their thorough appreciation of the bearings of the 
 question, and the firm hold that the cause of Repeal had taken of the 
 popular mind. 
 
 The moments assigned to the purposes for which we 
 are assembled here are so precious that I must not 
 waste them upon points of mere formality or upon 
 matters that might be deemed personal to myself. 
 Otherwise, I should have desired to explain the cir- 
 cumstances under which I now present myself to 
 you, and detain you, perhaps, from those whose elo- 
 quence is far more worthy of the attention of the vast 
 assembly before me than anything that I can say. I 
 may, however, just tell you, who have consented to 
 countenance these spirited efforts of our friends of 
 the League in their endeavours to bring before the 
 country and the world the question which has united 
 them, that I should have been ashamed of myself if, 
 at the summons of our excellent friend who deter- 
 
DEURY LANE THEATRE. 363 
 
 mines the movement of this union, I had shrunk from 
 contributing my feeble aid by bearing testimony in 
 favour of the cause. 
 
 The first thing that I feel prompted to notice and 
 to assert on the present occasion is the immense service 
 that you are rendering the cause, and those who are 
 toiling for it, in marking your interest in these pro- 
 ceedings by attending here with so much spirit and in 
 such great numbers. 
 
 Speaking from the knowledge of the progress 
 and position of Repeal in another place I venture 
 to say that if you feel certain of the justice of our 
 cause when you go hence, you may also feel satisfied 
 that you have greatly promoted its success by your 
 presence here to-night. For this meeting is not a 
 meeting of an ordinary kind. It has not been assem- 
 bled under common circumstances, and it wUl produce 
 no common effect. It has been assembled in spite 
 of influence used to prevent it. Aye, in spite of 
 threats to the courageous man who owns this build- 
 ing. In spite of all the abuse, and ridicule, and ca- 
 lumny that have been poured forth by the organs of 
 fashion and Monopoly to prevent the public discussion 
 of the Corn Laws. 
 
 This is the second time that this house has been 
 filled to overflowing ; filled, not by persons who 
 have come for mere recreation, or idle amusement, 
 but by those who wish to manifest their interest 
 in the condition of the country and their sympathy 
 with the distress of their fellow-men. And, indeed, so 
 great has been the demand for places that as many 
 
364 FEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 have been disappointed of gaining admission as have 
 been able to be admitted. 
 
 It will be a cheering sign to the country that the 
 people of London are at length roused on the subject 
 of the Corn Laws, that they will no longer endure 
 the reproach of being either ignorant of the real 
 interests of the country, or indifferent to the suffer- 
 ings of their fellow-subjects. It wUl be a sign to 
 the Monopolists that the citizens of London will no 
 longer be deluded by the silly things that have been 
 told them ; that they will now judge for themselves ; 
 that they are determined to inquire for what purpose 
 or to serve what interest the whole economy of this 
 great country has been disturbed, and discontent, 
 misery, and ruin have been spread on every side, 
 leaving nothing more cheering in prospect for the 
 future. 
 
 Hence you have done quite right, in my judg- 
 ment, in joining heartily with those who from the 
 first have warned the Legislature of the mad course 
 they were pursuing in resisting the claims of Nature, 
 and quarrelling with the designs of Providence ; 
 with those who from the first have denounced the 
 principle of legislation that has caused so much evU, 
 and who have called incessantly for the total abandon- 
 ment of such a principle. 
 
 And now I will tell you why, in my judgment, 
 you render such essential service in manifesting pub- 
 licly your interest in this matter. It is because we have 
 arrived at that point in another place from which we 
 can advance no further without your assistance. I 
 
DEUEY LANE THEATRE. 365 
 
 believe that fresh argument or new facts would be of 
 little avail now in that place. They have reached 
 the point in the House of Commons with regard to 
 this question that the priests and augurs of ancient 
 Rome were said to have reached with regard to their 
 religion : they no longer imposed upon themselves ; 
 and a great man of the time wondered how any two 
 of them could meet in the street without a smile. 
 It is the same with respect to the Corn Laws in 
 the House : they have almost ceased to be discussed 
 with gravity ; and few take the trouble to deny 
 that the Sliding Scale of which we have heard so 
 much is anything but a mischievous contrivance to 
 retain Monopoly at the expense of the commerce, 
 industry, and revenue of the country. Few now 
 doubt that any permanent duty or impediment to the 
 import of the necessaries of life must needs dimiaish 
 the amount of them consumed in the country, and 
 raise the price of all that are grown at home. This, 
 I believe, is a matter on which there is, in private, 
 perfect unanimity. Indeed, the young and intelligent 
 Monopohsts laugh in their sleeves at the subtleties 
 of their artful leader, and the older ones maintain the 
 sUent system, thinking, probably, that the least said the 
 soonest mended. 
 
 I conclude that you too have collected such to be 
 the case from the manner in which recent discussions 
 on the distress of the country and on those questions 
 that have reference to the Corn Laws have been 
 treated. You have seen the eagerness that pre- 
 vailed to shift the question from the principle to the 
 
366 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 person. You remember when our friend the Member 
 for Stockport charged those who have the power to 
 alter these Laws with the responsibility of their 
 maintenance. You observed in what a spirit and with 
 what justice that well-merited reproach was treated. 
 Why even a pi-incipal organ of the party was com- 
 pelled, after denouncing our friend and charging him 
 with aU the offences under the sun, to admit that his 
 speech had been left unanswered. They did not 
 doubt that he was in connivance with the criminal of 
 whom we have heard so much ; they did not hesitate 
 to join in the cry raised against him ; but still not 
 satisfied with their friends they said : ' He has made 
 a striking speech on the subject of Monopoly, but we 
 cannot find that any of you have offered any answer 
 to it.' 
 
 Again, but a few nights since, my Hon. Friend 
 the Member for Shefiield^ tested the Monopolist 
 party on the ground that they have always assumed 
 with the greatest confidence whenever I have sub- 
 mitted a Motion on the Corn Laws to the House of 
 Commons : namely, the ground of special burdens. 
 Their constant plea has been that they regret the 
 existence of the Corn Laws ; that they would repeal 
 them if they possibly could ; but that they are groan- 
 ing under special and exclusive burdens which for 
 the benefit of the community at large they took on 
 themselves, and that therefore they could not now 
 consult the interests of those who complain, in the 
 way they desire. The Hon. Member for Sheffield 
 
 1 Mr. H. a. Ward. 
 
DRURY LANE THEATRE. 367 
 
 was curious to know what the charges could be, so he 
 brought forward his Motion ; and asked for a Select 
 Committee — a Committee upstairs — before which the 
 Monopolists might state their extraordinary and ex- 
 clusive burdens. 
 
 How was the Motion met? We heard nothmg 
 more of peculiar burdens on land. Monopolists 
 would not go into anything specific on the subject ; 
 but they drew the House away from it by raising- 
 discussion on the conduct and character of the 
 labourers in Dorsetshire. The Hon. Member for 
 that county, who rose immediately after my Hon. 
 Friend, led us away into that rural paradise of the 
 peasant, the county for which he sits ; and there 
 the discussion was carried on for the rest of the 
 evening. The question turned upon the enjoyments 
 of the labourers of that district, and whether the 
 wages which a man had the happiness to earn, and 
 enjoy with his wife and five children, were 8s. or 
 8s. Qd. per week. 
 
 But what does this prove? It proves that these 
 Laws can no longer be defended w4th any show of 
 policy or justice ; and that their repeal is resisted solely 
 because it is thought that there is no immediate occa- 
 sion for it. We, however, who have been in the 
 habit of watching politics in Parliament know what 
 an ' immediate occasion ' for changing a law means. 
 We know that there is a sort of Sliding Scale there 
 for justice and humanity as well as for corn : pressure 
 from without is like the price of grain ; if it is sufli- 
 ciently high the ports are open, but the instant it is 
 
368 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 withdrawn — as with the fall of prices — down goes the 
 bar, and justice and humanity are shut out. 
 
 We are as earnest and sincere as anybody in the 
 wish to see an end put to all the turmoil and agita- 
 tion now prevaUing, and evidenced by the assembly 
 of vast numbers such as this ; but we are also earnest 
 and sincere m the wish to see the Corn Laws repealed, 
 and — I speak from long experience of the progress of 
 the question in Parliament — without this high pres- 
 sure we have no chance of success. 
 
 Looking at their character and consequences, I 
 have come to the deliberate conviction that there is 
 nothing more prejudicial than the Corn Laws, not 
 even excepting personal slavery itself. I believe that 
 through the want they occasion they make men slaves 
 in their physical condition, and thus tend to debase 
 their moral state. 
 
 When laws produce such effects, when the wisest 
 among us have come to the conclusion that these 
 are their characteristics, then legislators, at least, are 
 bound to acquaint themselves with the subject, and to 
 form a deliberate judgment on it. And how can any 
 man remain in doubt about the Corn Laws when all 
 doubt can be solved by putting to himself a few plaiu 
 questions ? He has only to ask what is the result of 
 these Laws? Are they just in principle? Are they 
 beneficial? If they have done no good, have they 
 done no harm? Have they not aggravated the em- 
 barrassments of the community? Have they not 
 subjected the working man to privations the bare 
 allusion to which makes the blood recoU? If these 
 
DRURY LANE THEATRE. 369 
 
 things are alleged — and they are — I say that no 
 man has any excuse for not informing himself upon 
 them ; and, in this instance, no man has any right 
 to complain that he cannot learn the truth, because 
 the very object of the League, and of these meet- 
 ings in connection with it, is to afford to every one 
 who is honestly desirous of learning the truth the 
 means of doing so. The League does not ask you 
 to come here to adopt its views ; it does not up- 
 hold any crotchets or nostrums of its own ; but it 
 brings under your consideration the views and doc- 
 trines of the strongest and wisest minds amongst us ; 
 it collects the facts which our best experience has 
 possessed us of, and^then it asks you to draw your 
 own conclusions. 
 
 You are well aware of all the miseries that now 
 surround you. Think of the multitudes of the work- 
 ing classes suffering from an inadequate recompense 
 of their labour ! Think of the property being wasted 
 in the accumulation of goods, the produce of the 
 industry of the country ! Think of the men reduced 
 and worn down by unequal competition ! Now, the 
 question that we ask you to consider is, whether the 
 people shall have the means and the power afforded 
 them of working for their food. Will any one say 
 that if the food comes in it can be paid for otherwise 
 than by labour? If the food does not come in, where 
 is the advantage of the existing Laws to the working 
 man ? These Laws exist solely for the purpose of 
 excluding that food. If they did not exist, food 
 would not come m, and could not come in, without 
 
 VOL. I. B B 
 
S70 IFEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 labour being employed to pay for it. Those wbo 
 have returned me to Parliament are chiefly engaged 
 in working for other countries that have no means 
 of paying them for what they do except by their 
 own special produce ; and over and over again they 
 have begged that the food from those countries 
 should be released from the warehouses in order to 
 enable them to gain their living by their labour. 
 What, then, has really prevented them from gaining 
 their living but these Laws, this restriction upon the 
 importation of food? What becomes of them thus 
 hindered from earning their living ? They are com- 
 pelled to have recourse to the parish, to receive 
 relief from public charity. And when I am asked to 
 go to Parliament and to demand the repeal of the 
 Laws that prevent them from obtaining an honest 
 livelihood, I am told by those who oppose me that 
 Parliament has imposed peculiar burdens on land, 
 and that they cannot change the system. 
 
 But how stood this question when the Corn Laws 
 were passed ? Lord Liverpool did not scruple to avow 
 that they were passed for no other purpose than to 
 maintain the rents at their existing rate. The rents 
 were enormously high at that time, and fear was en- 
 tertained that they would fall. Lord Liverpool said 
 that the rents must be maintained, that they must be 
 prevented from falling, and that the only effect of the 
 Corn Laws would be to require tenants to make fresh 
 bargains with their landlords ; and hence things 
 would adjust themselves. This was the opinion of 
 Lord Liverpool when the Corn Laws were passed ; and 
 
DRURY LANE THEATRE, 37l 
 
 he never altered it. He never alluded to any peculiar 
 burdens on land, because it was fresb in his recollec- 
 tion that land claimed peculiar exemptions. He was 
 a colleague of Mr. Pitt ; and Mr. Pitt had proposed 
 that a certain measure of taxation which he brought 
 forward should embrace all sorts of property — land 
 included. I refer to the Probate and Legac}'' Duties, 
 The landlords resisted the proposed tax on land, and 
 ultimately it was rejected. Lord Liverpool therefore 
 never talked the nonsense that we now hear talked. 
 And he never argued that we could not have Free Trade 
 in this country because we should then be dependent 
 on other countries : he remembered that even during 
 the French war we received food from France and the 
 French soldiers were clothed with the produce of 
 British labour. But this is an argument that is now 
 used, though it cannot have any weight with the 
 country. It is an argument that applies equally to 
 eveiy description of commerce, and therefore it can- 
 not be confined to the single article of food. In 
 matters of commercial intercourse we must be 
 dependent on those with whom we trade, and the 
 argument does not apply more strongly to those who 
 supply us with food than to those who supf)ly us 
 with the other wants of life. 
 
 And Lord Liverpool never spoke of Poor Rates 
 as being a peculiar burden on land. Nor did he 
 entertain the notion that high prices were likely to 
 secure good wages ; for he remembered that when 
 the price of food rose to an enormous height at the 
 end of the last century, the sufferings of the working 
 
 B B 2 
 
372 PEEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 classes had never before been so great, and every 
 contrivance was resorted to in order to prevent wages 
 rising higher than the point at which they then stood. 
 
 Neither did we hear of hostile tariffs at that time, 
 because the system of hostility that the Corn Laws 
 have provoked had not commenced. There was no 
 tariff on our manufactures, because all countries 
 depended on us for them ; and if we had adopted 
 the same line of policy that was then pursued, I have 
 little doubt that for a century, at least, we should 
 have maintained our supremacy. 
 
 Such, then, was the origin of the Corn Laws. 
 Many people would no doubt like to bolster up their 
 interests and to increase their incomes at the expense 
 of other classes. But if a man had houses to let 
 what would you say to a law that confined people 
 to their locality ? Where, therefore, is the justice of 
 endeavouring to give to one class an advantage by 
 law over other classes? 
 
 And what do you think of the justice of those 
 Laws that raise the rent of land by a monopoly and 
 allow the labourer to be exposed to competition to 
 settle his wages ? Such, however, is the nature of the 
 Laws that are intended exclusively for the benefit of 
 the landlords. 
 
 They say, indeed, being careful of the general 
 interest, that the Corn Laws are for the advantage of 
 the farmer : they secure him steady prices. Now if 
 the Laws benefit him, he surely must know it after 
 twenty-eight years' experience of them. But what 
 is the case ? Look at the state of the rural districts. 
 
DEUEY LANE THEATEE. 373 
 
 The farmers are badly off ; there is no class in a 
 worse condition ; no class more distressed ; and no 
 class more clamorous for relief, or more full of com- 
 plaint at their condition. What is the reason of 
 this ? They are not able to fulfil their engagements ; 
 they agreed to pay a higher rent to the landlord 
 than they find they are able to pay ; and they 
 entered into the contract because the landlord per- 
 suaded them that the Corn Laws would secure them 
 high prices. 
 
 But this part of the subject was so ably treated 
 by the Hon. Member for Stockport last Wednesday, 
 that it is not necessary for me to go further into it. 
 He showed you by five or six distinct examples how 
 it is that the landlords are enabled by their political 
 contrivances to obtain increased rents from the 
 farmers ; which rents the farmers in most cases can 
 pay only by expending their capitals. 
 
 We have been told, indeed, that the present con- 
 dition of the farmers has been caused by the partial 
 application of Free Trade principles. There is already 
 unquestionably a panic amongst the farmers ; but it 
 has not been induced by any application of the prin- 
 ciples of Free Trade. I believe that the panic was 
 produced by the doubts that have arisen in their 
 minds as to the opinion of their friends on the 
 subject of Free Trade. It simply indicates their 
 feeling that they have been grossly deceived by their 
 own friends. They were very much encouraged 
 at the last general election to vote for those Mem- 
 bers who were staunch adherents of the Corn Laws, 
 
374 FllEE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 They made great exertions, and great promises were 
 made to them in return ; but their expectations have 
 not been realized. They find that their friends 
 have taken the opportunity to alter the Laws ; and 
 the very persons they trusted at the time of the elec- 
 tion have, they now complain, adopted the views of 
 their opponents. The farmers are frightened. There 
 is a panic, most certainly ; but the panic is because 
 the farmers, still liable to all their engagements, know 
 not whom to trust. Farmers are not difiPerent from 
 other men ; they are open to argument and reason, and 
 if they saw good ground for making a change m the 
 law they would readily submit to a change being made. 
 We know what occurred last autumn when per- 
 sons were engaged at different places and meetmgs 
 to prepare the farmers for a change. I saw them 
 going about from place to place telling the farmers 
 to be ready to resign their peculiar protection, and 
 to trust to their industry, mtelligence, and skill, 
 like other men. After the election the farmers' 
 friends altered their views and changed their tactics; 
 but the farmers did not know why. The gentle- 
 men who addressed them at dinners and public 
 meetings had certainly commenced to exhibit a 
 wavering in their opinions which the farmers could 
 not understand. They gave out, at first, that the 
 Government were preparing to alter the Corn Laws 
 as soon as Parliament met ; but afterwards they went 
 back to their old poHcy; they remembered, probably, 
 the threat of a Noble Duke ^ that if ever they proposed 
 
 ' The Duke of Eichmond, 
 
DEUEY LANE THEATRE. 375 
 
 in Parliament to abolish the Corn Laws, he would 
 bring in a Bill to change all existing leases ; and they 
 were afraid of the threat. 
 
 One important consideration connected with this 
 question in relation to the condition of the farmers is 
 that the farmers appear to have no chance of getting 
 rid of their distress. They complain that they cannot 
 sell their produce. What is the cause of this? It 
 has no other cause than the impoverished condition 
 of the people. The people are too poor to pay for 
 the farmers' produce, and therefore they do not 
 consume it. The condition of the labourers is 
 everywhere so bad that the guardians of union- 
 workhouses have passed resolutions to deteriorate the 
 food of the paupers ; otherwise, it is said, it would be 
 better than the food of the independent labourers. 
 For the same reason they have resolved to reduce the 
 quantity, as well as the quality, of the paupers' diet. 
 
 But the distress is not confined to the working 
 classes. It begixts to affect the middle classes. I have 
 only to-day received a letter from Devonshire, which 
 states that the distress there is makmg rapid progress 
 amongst the middle classes. [Mr. Villiers here read 
 the letter, which was fi:om Totnes, and stated that 
 the distress was rapidly extending from the labouring 
 classes to the classes above them, and that many 
 families had given up eating bread, and had taken to 
 Uve solely on potatoes. The reading of this letter 
 was accompanied with loud cries of ' Shame ! Shame ! ' 
 and ' Shocking! '] There is much more evidence of 
 the same kind ; and it can no longer be doubted that 
 
376 i'KEE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 the depression in the price of agricultural produce is 
 caused by the distress of the middle classes. 
 
 Now such being the condition of the middle 
 classes, what must be the condition of those below 
 them when no less than 1,300,000 of them are 
 dependent upon public charity ? And what must 
 be the condition of that other 1,000,000 who are 
 struggling to keep themselves out of the workhouse 
 and independent? One of the consequences of this 
 state of things is a great increase in the rate of mor- 
 tality. I have seen a letter sent to the Registrar- 
 General of bu'ths, deaths, and marriages from a large 
 town in Lancashire, showing a very marked increase 
 in mortality there ; and without the least doubt it 
 is owing to the impossibility of getting the food 
 requisite for their subsistence. These circumstances 
 have induced the members of the National League to 
 solicit the attention of their countrymen to the sub- 
 ject, in order that together they may take steps to put 
 an end to such alarming evils ; for not only is the 
 condition of the people reduced, but their impoverish- 
 ment is seriously affecting the condition of the pro- 
 ducers. 
 
 Another consequence of the diminished consump- 
 tion of the people is its effect in weakening the 
 sources of the Revenue taxation. If the middle and 
 workmg classes do not consume sugar and tea, and 
 coffee and malt, what is to become of the Revenue of 
 twenty million pounds levied by the Excise and Cus- 
 toms on these articles? The deficiency of the Revenue 
 at present is not less than 5,000,000^, a year. Do 
 
DBURY LANE THEATRE. 377 
 
 you expect that this state of things will be improved 
 by more taxation ? The Income Tax was imposed to 
 make up the deficiency of the Revenue ; and, let me 
 ask you, is that likely to improve the condition of the 
 people? Is it sound policy to increase the poverty 
 of the people which diminishes the Revenue, instead 
 of promoting their prosperity which increases it ? 
 
 There can be no doubt whatever that the Revenue 
 depends very much upon the condition of the people. 
 And it is admitted by all Chancellors of the Ex- 
 chequer that the returns frozn the Excise and Customs 
 inevitably varj'' with the varying price of food, and 
 vicissitudes of the harvest. In 1835, for example, 
 the price of food was very low, lower than it had 
 been for many years ; and in that year the surplus 
 Revenue was not less than 1,600,000/. In 1841, after 
 the price of food had been very high for two or three 
 years, the deficiency of the Revenue was not less than 
 2,500,000/. 
 
 And what is the object of the League, which we 
 invite you to support, but the repeal of the Laws that 
 make food scarce, and the establishment of a system 
 under which food would be permanently abundant? 
 That this justly describes the purpose of our exertions 
 I would refer to the arguments of our opponents, the 
 very foremost of which is that the attainment of our 
 object would tend to inundate the country with food, 
 and would greatly lower its price throughout the 
 kingdom. Then, I ask, if that would be the case, 
 and if the Revenue is always flourishing when food is 
 abundant, what better prospect have you of lowering 
 
378 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 taxation, or of being relieved of that tax so specially 
 odious whicli you have now to bear, than by first 
 abolishing the tax upon food. If food has been ren- 
 dered high before by means of the Corn Laws, it will 
 be agam. But can the condition of the people be 
 improved by such means ? And if the condition of 
 the people is not improved how can they consume 
 other articles that are taxed for the increase of the 
 Revenue? And if the deficit of the Revenue is aug- 
 mented will you not expect additional taxation rather 
 than to be relieved of any that professes to be only 
 temporary? Satisfy yourselves, therefore, whether 
 you have not an interest in repealing Laws that make 
 food artificially scarce, besides doing mischief to trade 
 and manufacture. 
 
 I will not weary you further. I have ventured to 
 speak at such length because I am sure that you came 
 here not to be amused or excited by declamation, but 
 to join in the deliberate consideration of a most serious 
 matter with all the gravity that belongs to it. 
 
 I have now only to add that on you and on your 
 manifestation of opinion on this question depends our 
 influence in Parliament. Withm this week you have 
 been represented in both Houses as caring nothing, 
 as utterly indifferent about a matter vital to your 
 interests. And this will be repeated if you allow it. 
 The whole case is before you. You have had a full 
 trial of the system, and with you rests its fate. You 
 are told that the Corn Laws were altered last year, and 
 must remain as they are for an experiment to be made. 
 The experiment has been made. The principle of 
 
DRURY LANE THEATRE. 379 
 
 the Corn Laws has been proved to be faulty and 
 iniquitous, and its practical results you are suffering 
 from at this hour. If you have a doubt of the policy 
 of demanding Repeal now, when do you think that 
 you would have a better chance of obtaining it? 
 And what experiment do you think would ever satisfy 
 our opponents? If prices do not rise, as they expect, 
 do you think that they will repeal the Laws that they 
 believe prevent them from falling lower than they are ? 
 And if prices rise, do you think that they will sacri- 
 fice that which gives them such an advantage? But 
 if you will have no better chance in the future than 
 you have at present, act now. Act now upon your 
 knowledge of all the evil, of all the misery and ruin 
 that the Corn Laws are calculated to produce — that 
 they have produced ; and, as you would pray to be 
 rid of a plague or pestilence scattering death and 
 destruction throughout the country, call in a tone 
 there shaU be no misunderstanding for their immediate 
 and total repeal. 
 
380 TREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25, 1843. 
 
 On April 25, 1843, Mr. Eicardo moved, ' That an humble address be pre- 
 sented to her Majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of this House 
 that it is not expedient that any contemplated remission of import duties 
 be postponed, with the view of making such remission a basis of commer- 
 cial negotiations with foreign countries.' Jlr. Villiers, Mr. Cobden, Lord 
 Howick, and Lord Russell supported the Motion, and Sir E. Peel and Mr. 
 Gladstone spoke against it. It was negatived by a majority of 74 votes. 
 
 I RISE to meet the only two objections that can be 
 said to have been fairly opposed to the proposition of 
 my Hon. Friend. One of these was made by the Hon. 
 Baronet who has just sat down,^ and the other by 
 the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. I notice them 
 because I know that they pass current in some quarters, 
 and that there are persons influenced by them. 
 
 The Hon. Member for Liverpool considers that 
 the system of freedom proposed by my Hon. Friend 
 will lead to further restrictions by other nations, be- 
 cause, he says, the relaxation of our system of late 
 has already been met by hostile tariffs in six different 
 States. I do not consider this objection to be in 
 point; but, on the contrary, a confirmation of the view 
 taken on this side of the House, that the example 
 of this country greatly influences the policy of other 
 States. For though we have talked much of the re- 
 
 ' Sir H. Douglas. 
 
HOtTSE OF COMMONS. 381 
 
 laxation of our system, the fact is that we have 
 steadily and avowedly adhered to the principle of 
 it, which is Protection. And this is what foreign 
 States look to. They observe that though we shift 
 the duties a little, we boast with as much firmness 
 as before of sticking to the principle of Protection ; 
 and observing our example they follow it and raise 
 their tariffs to secure Protection for themselves. 
 
 If we had honestly denounced the sj^^stem and 
 declared it to be proved wrong by experience, and if 
 we had reduced our duties whilst other States still 
 persevered in the same system, the remark might have 
 been just; but as it is foreign States are imitating 
 this country. 
 
 The objection urged by the Hon. Member for 
 Shrewsbury is that if we regard only our imports 
 the precious metals will leave this country and we 
 shaU experience great derangement of the Currency : 
 as we did in 1839 upon the occasion of a great import 
 of grain. And he expects that this can only be pre- 
 vented by a Reciprocal Treaty by which the nation 
 from which we import stipulates to receive our manu- 
 factures. 
 
 Now, let me inform the Hon. Member, for his 
 consolation, that though our relations with the grain - 
 growing States remain as they were in 1839, that 
 though we have imported grain for four or five years 
 successively, we have nevertheless ceased to export 
 bullion ; and that the trade with those countries having 
 become more regular, payment has been made in 
 manufactures : which shows that it is under the 
 
382 FREE TRADE SPEECHES. 
 
 present system, when the trade is not suffered to be 
 regular, that upon a sudden demand we are obliged 
 to send out bullion ; but that when the trade continues 
 the exchange with manufactures is regular. In fact, 
 the grain that we have imported during the last four 
 years has been paid for in this way. 
 
 But there are instances in which the tariffs of 
 other countries are almost prohibitory as regards our 
 manufactures ; and yet we contrive to take their 
 goods without sending bullion. Russia is an instance. 
 The value of the exports of that country to England 
 is about 5,000,000^. ; and we take the pitch, flax, tallow, 
 and hides of Russia without paymg for them directly in 
 goods. There are other instances that I could name, 
 and enough to show the Hon. Gentleman that no 
 direct trade is carried on, and that direct interchange 
 of goods between this and any other particular country 
 need not occur. The merchants discover the liabilities 
 existing between different countries, and may be safely 
 relied upon to adjust the account resulting from trade 
 between them. 
 
 So much for the objections urged against my Hon. 
 Friend's Motion, which are without foundation. 
 Whatever else has been said against it is either a 
 misrepresentation of its objects or something uttered 
 with a view to confuse it. 
 
 I will now just recall the attention of the House to 
 the simple point that is raised in question by the 
 proposition, which really is no other than the purpose 
 of our trade, and the principle that ought to guide 
 any regulation of it. 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 383 
 
 My Hon. Friend proceeds upon the principle that 
 the great object of trade in any country is im- 
 ports, which he has expressed with epigrammatic 
 brevity : ' Take care of your imports, the exports 
 will take care of themselves.' This raises the whole 
 question of our commercial policy, and decides it ; 
 and if it is sound, the Minister-statesman who occu- 
 pies himself with our commerce will know how to 
 promote its interest. I entirely assent to the doc- 
 trine, and have often asserted it. The great object of 
 all our traffic with other countries is to get into this 
 country as many of the objects of human desire as 
 possible, in order that the largest share possible may 
 fall to each person. This cannot be done, unfortu- 
 nately, without producing equivalents at home to 
 pm'chase them with ; but certain it is, that these 
 imports cannot take place without so much capital 
 and labour being employed to produce the equivalent. 
 In short, imports appear in this country as customers, 
 they are the means by which our productions are 
 bought, and every duty imposed on them is like re- 
 stricting or destrojnng a customer. An 'import duty 
 and an export duty has in this respect precisely the 
 same effect ; each prevents or hinders some customer 
 for our labour ; and whenever we want to encourage 
 the demand for labour, the reduction or removal of 
 an import duty is the mode of securmg it. 
 
 If we lived in a more simple or in a savage state, 
 nobody would doubt that the great object of trade, or 
 going forth to toil, is not to take out what we have, 
 but to bring home what we want ; and had we our 
 
384 FREE TEADE SPEECHES. 
 
 own way, we should probably take what we want with- 
 out giving an equivalent ; in our present condition, 
 however, we are doomed to be honest, and we are 
 compelled to work for what we want. Still, the end 
 is to multiply a deficiency of what we have and wish 
 to possess in abundance. This, then, is a distinct view 
 of the object of all our trade, and once admitted a 
 great point will have been gained. 
 
 We have seen this evening that there are some 
 who, like the ISToble Lord the Member for Liverpool, 
 think that we import goods without exjDorting any- 
 thing in return. We are lucky if we do, that is all I 
 can say. But the Noble Lord should show us how we 
 do this or we must doubt what he says. There are 
 others, however, who are ever talking of trade and 
 employment as the great objects to be gained and as 
 if everything is accomplished if that is got. Now 
 the difference between these gentlemen and myself is 
 this : I regard trade and labour as merely the means, 
 the things that are gained by them as the end. But 
 simple as this seems, it is not yet conceded ; if it 
 were, all this haggling and delay whilst Reciprocal 
 Treaties are negotiated, would never occur and deprive 
 us of great advantages. 
 
 The truth is, if we took the common views of the 
 interests of this country, and rejoiced 'n\ the errors 
 and disadvantages of our neighbours, so far from 
 waiting till other countries have reduced their duties, 
 we ought to be satisfied that such countries as France 
 and Belgium exclude many products of this country 
 that are essential to their prosperity and would facili- 
 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 385 
 
 tute their rivalry witli us. Can anybody doubt, for 
 instance, that France would gain an immense advan- 
 tage were she to import coal and iron free of duty ; 
 and that she injures herself and retards her progress 
 by her wretched Protective system? 
 
 I am glad to see that we are going to have the 
 opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the 
 Government on the matter, and I hope that he will 
 give us his views distinctly. 
 
 I sincerely wish that the principle involved in 
 my Hon. Friend's proposition could be decided upon ; 
 for I am sure that nothing would sooner remove the 
 difficulties that seem to involve all our commercial 
 relations, or tend more to simplify the regulations 
 that we are eternally framing for what is called the 
 "ood of trade. 
 
 EXD OF THK FIEST VOLUMK 
 
 LONDON : rniSTED BY 
 
 CPOTTISWOODB AND CO., SEIV-STREET BQL'AHE 
 
 AND PARLIAMENT BTBELT 
 
 Vol. I. C C 
 
%•