66

supply would be immense, beyond all power of consumption. Lord Ashburton quoted from a work, published by Lord John Russell in 1821, written in the philosophic quiet of retirement, to show what he then thought of political economy as a science. The noble writer spoke of political economy as an awful word," as a science which was 66 changing from day to day;" and now, said Lord Ashburton, their lordships were called upon to decide a question involving the happiness, perhaps the existence, of millions of people, according to the rules of such a science! In his opinion, it was the most mighty and momentous question ever submitted to a Legislature. It was one affecting the foundation of their constitution, disturbing the domestic relations of almost every family in the country, endangering the tenure of their Colonies, exposing them to the mercy of foreign nations; and, as such, they could not treat it with too much caution. He had voted for the relaxations of 1842, but he could not consent to adopt a system which abolished protection entirely.

The Marquis of Lansdowne treated the argument of the danger of dependence on foreign nations for food as entirely chimerical. If there ever was a law contrived to expose this country to the danger of foreign animosity, it was the sliding-scale. The effect of it The effect of it was to expose to all the world our condition as to the supply of food; and supposing that foreign nations ever would be likely to enter into such a conspiracy, as had been suggested, to cut off our supplies, the sliding-scale would announce to them the precise time most favourable for doing so. Lord Lansdowne treated with equal disregard

the assertion that, in consequence of the introduction of this measure, the influence and importance of landed property would be diminished. In addressing himself to the commercial part of the question he remarked, that whatever Lord Ashburton might think of political economy, he and his noble friends who supported the Bill relied on experience as their guide; and it was those who supported a protective system that, in truth, relied on theories. The many experiments which had been made for fostering trade by protective means had failed, and been abandoned; and with regard to the Corn Laws, which had been described as "the settled system of our ancestors," that system had never had any fixed shape whatever; it was always changing. It had even been said to form part of our constitution and religion, and he knew not what; but if it had formed part of our religion, it must surely have done so unknown to the right reverend prelates, for in that case our religion had certainly never been the same for twenty years together. He agreed with Lord Ashburton in the high estimate he had expressed of Mr. Huskisson; but one of the first efforts of Mr. Huskisson was exerted in destroying the protection enjoyed by the silk trade, and the experiment proved perfectly successful. The same remark applied to wool, to shipping, and to the introduction of Irish manufactures into England. When the proposal to introduce these manufactures was made by Mr. Pitt, it met with the most decided opposition, the ruin of the cotton manufacture in England being freely and confidently held up as a consequence. But what has been the result? Unfortu

nately for Ireland, she did not produce cotton goods for her own consumption; and the cotton manufacture of England had not only doubled, but tripled, quadrupled, and quintupled. About the year 1788, the commercial treaty with France was debated in their lordships' House; and on that occasion Dr. Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, took up those notions of protection which Lord Stanley had now taken up, and came down to the House of Lords and told their lordships that they were overturning all the experience of their ancestors by this commercial treaty. Follow ing, or rather preceding, the example of Lord Stanley, who appealed to the time of Edward IV., Bishop Watson came down later, and read the preamble of an Act of Parliament of the time of Charles II. And what did this preamble, embodying the wisdom of our ancestors, state? It said: "Whereas it is universally known that the wealth of this country is disappearing, and ruin is advancing, from money being sent out of the country to purchase French wines.' (Laughter.) This was a sample of the experience of our ancestors, to which his noble friend (Lord Stanley) had referred. Revering, as Lord Lansdowne did, the wisdom of our ancestors, in founding the constitution under which we lived-believing that they had laid that constitution on the surest and most certain foundation, and had thereby contributed to the happiness and prosperity of this country-still he must say that his respect for our ancestors did not extend to any one of the nostrums which from time to time they had thought fit to apply to our commercial system. All the schemes

invented by them, and founded on the protective system, had failed; and the noble lord who presided over the Board of Trade, if he were to look over all the papers and memorials presented to that Board from time to time, would find that the commerce of this country had encountered more imaginary dangers than ever had been met with by any adventurer in a voyage, not excepting Sinbad. the Sailor himself. If all those representations were to be believed, the commerce of this country had been almost ever at the brink of a precipice; but after a few years all apprehension blew over, and the commerce of the country was always found to be upon a higher eminence than it had attained before. He therefore again said, that they had experience against, and not for, a protective system.

The Earl of Essex, in a concise but effective speech, supported the Bill. He admitted frankly that his opinion had undergone a changethat change had been wrought by reflection and experience. He believed that it was a common fallacy among the farmers that high prices tended to their benefit. He believed, on the contrary, that moderate prices in conjunction with abundant produce would best remunerate them. He believed this measure must pass, and he looked to its passing as the means of putting an end to those bitter divisions which were separating the great interests in this country, and checking the progress of agricultural improvement. His vote would be given in entire confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers. They were charged with inconsistency, but upon this question who had been consistent? He admired the moral courage of Sir Robert Peel

in setting aside personal considerations, and encountering the taunts and sneers of political opponents; and he predicted the arrival of the time when that Minister would be universally regarded as one of the most sagacious and successful of our statesmen.

The Earl of Eglintoun strenuously opposed the Bill. He appealed to their lordships, as the hereditary guardians of the people and the protectors of their rights, not to suffer that House to share in that general degradation which this ill-omened measure had already brought upon the character of British statesmen.

Lord Beaumont followed on the same side. He anticipated great evils as likely to arise from the drain of gold necessary to pay for foreign corn, and gave it as his decided opinion that the British farmer could not compete with the foreigner.

The Earl of Dalhousie defended the Bill. He maintained that protective duties were hurtful to the consumer, and that in the long run they were not beneficial even to the producer. He combated Lord Stanley's statements with respect to the falling off in manufactures on the reduction of duties, exemplifying his own position of a contrary result by the instance of wool, in reference to which he quoted returns of imports for several years. He entered into similar details on the subjects of timber and shipping. Adverting to Lord Stanley's assertion of the universality of the Corn Laws in all the continental states, Lord Dalhousie proceeded to show by a detailed enumeration of the different states that no real analogy existed between the laws there existing and our own. It was folly to talk of

the sliding scale having rendered England independent of foreign. supply, when the fact was notorious that year after year our foreign importations had been increasing under that system. The quantity of foreign corn imported into this country had been gradually, but most sensibly and most perceptibly, increasing ever since the sliding scale had been introduced. In the five years, intervening between 1840 and 1845, no less a quantity than 1,879,000 quarters had been imported. Nor should this fact be lost sight of, that never had agriculture been in a more thriving or more prosperous condition than during that period. He had been called upon to state on the part of the Government what would be the price of corn under the new system, but he considered that demand altogether unreasonable. Was there a single noble lord advocating the protective system, who, under the sliding-scale, would have been prepared to predicate at any particular period the price of corn next year? Nothing had been put forth to contradict the official documents by which it appeared that the importation of corn would be extremely limited. It was stated by Lord Stanley that 5,000,000 quarters additional of corn could be imported from the countries on the Danube within a term of three years, being purchased abroad at 14s. a quarter, and sold here at 36s. to 40s. He would not read letters to disprove this, but he would lay before their lordships documents infinitely more authoritative, being the bills of sale of several cargoes of wheat imported from Galacz. These were purchased in the year 1844, and brought to this country; they were not delayed in the ware

houses; yet on every one of these there was a loss to a great extent. It might be asked, if there was not to be a great increase in supply or diminution in price, why did Government propose this change? They did it not because they thought that it would greatly reduce the price of the article, but because, by stimulating trade and setting in motion the manufactures of the country, they would be taking the surest possible means of providing full employment for the population. Let them depend upon it, the labourer in the rural districts depended entirely on the labourer in the manufacturing districts. Every loom stopped in the city stopped a spade in the field.

The Duke of Wellington addressed their lordships in a succinct and characteristic speech. He began by alluding to the disadvantages under which he appeared as a supporter of the Bill. "I address you under the disadvantage of appearing as a Minister of the Crown to press this measure, in opposition to the views of many of those with whom I have so long acted in public life-with whom I have lived in habits of close intimacy and friendship, and whose good opinion it has always afforded me great satisfaction to obtain, and, indeed, which I have enjoyed in the utmost degree. I have already named to you the circumstances under which I became a party to this measure. In November I considered it my bounden duty to my Sovereign not to withhold my assistance from the Government; and I resumed my seat at Her Majesty's councils, and gave my assistance to my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury, because I knew at that time that he could

It was this

not do otherwise than propose a measure of this description-nay, this very measure. very measure that he proposed to the Cabinet early in that month. ("Hear, hear!") It is not necessary, my lords, that I should now say any more on that subject; and though some of your lordships may entertain a prejudice against me for the course I have adopted, I can justify it before your lordships by telling you that I was bound to take it, and that if the same circumstances occurred tomorrow, I would take it again. (Loud cheers.) I was bound to my Sovereign and to my country by considerations of gratitude, of which it is unnecessary for me to say more than to allude to them on this occasion. Your lordships may think it probably true, and it is true, that with reference to this subject I ought to feel no relations of party, and you may think that party ought not to rely upon me. Be it So, if you think proper. (Cheers.) I have stated to you the motives from which I acted. I am satisfied with them myself, and I should be exceedingly concerned if any dissatisfaction was caused in the minds of any of your lordships by my conduct. I am aware that I never had any claims upon the confidence which your lordships so long reposed in me, and which I have now enjoyed for a considerable number of years. Circumstances contributed to give it to me. In some cases I had the confidence of the Crown, and in other cases I obtained your confidence in consequence of the zeal with which I endeavoured to serve your lordships, to promote your public views, and to facilitate the transaction of the business of this House. I shall ever lament any

breaking-up of the habits of confidence in public life with which your lordships have honoured me; but I will not allow this occasion to pass, even if this night should possibly be the last upon which I should give you my advice, without giving my counsels as to the vote which I think your lordships ought to give on this occasion. My noble friend, whose absence I regret to-night, addressed you a few nights ago, and urged you in the strongest manner to vote against this measure, and told you, in language which I could not imitate, that your duty on this occasion was to step in and protect the public from the rash and inconsiderate measures which have passed the other House of Parliament, and which were inconsistent, in his view, with public opinion. My lords, there is no doubt whatever but it is your duty to consider all the measures which are brought before you with great deliberation before you vote, and you have a right then to vote as if you thought that Parliament would act on the vote which each of you gave. (Cheers.) This is the course which I have always taken on former occasions, and it is the course which now, my lords, I beg of you to take. My lords, I will request of you to look to this measure--to the manner in which it has come before you, and to the consequences likely to follow from your rejection of it. This measure, my lords, was announced to you in the Speech from the Throne, and it has been passed by a majority of more than half of the House of Commons. My noble friend says, and with truth, that this vote differs from the original vote given by the same House of Commons, and with the views or with the supposed views of

the constituencies. But I do not think, my lords, that this is a subject which you can take into your consideration, because you can have no accurate knowledge of the fact, and because, in the next place, we know that it is the Bill of the House of Commons that has come up to us, and we know by the votes which have been passed that it is the Bill which has been recommended by the Crown. If we reject this Bill, my lords, we know that we reject the Bill which has been passed and agreed to by the two other branches of the constitution, and that the House of Lords will stand alone in rejecting it. This is the consideration with which I beg your lordships to look at the question. This is a position, my lords, in which you ought not, in which you cannot stand; it is a position in which you are powerless, and can do nothing. You have vast influence on public opinion; but separated from the Crown and from the House of Commons, you can do nothing until the connection with them is revived. I conclude that a new Government will be formed; be it so or not-do you conclude, my lords, that there will not be the same measure brought before you by the next Administration? Do you mean, then, to reject this Bill a second time? Do you mean that the country shall go on in the discussion of this measure for many months longer? But, my lords, I am told that the reply is, that the Parliament should be dissolved-(Loud cheers)—and that the country should have an opportunity, if they think fit, of returning other representatives, and of seeing whether or not another House of Commons will agree to this measure. Now, really, my lords, if you have so