There was hardly one of them imposed | law, and moreover a sliding-scale; but free for the sake of protection, and hardly one importation was allowed when wheat was of them excluded corn the produce of other countries in the years to which his noble Friend had referred. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) held in his hand a statement of the various corn laws in Europe, which he would read to their Lordships. In Turkey there was a duty upon corn as upon every other article of 5 per cent ad valorem; but in the Danubian provinces of Turkey (which he begged their Lordships to bear in mind were the corngrowing provinces) and where, if anywhere, a protection duty would be found, the duty was 3 per cent ad valorem, and there was no point which the population of those provinces held with greater tenacity than their right to have the duty at 3 instead of 5 per cent. How his noble Friend could draw any argument in favour of protection from this source, he declared he could not see. The Papal States of Italy admitted corn free when the price was 48s. per quarter. In the Two Sicilies the duty was about 8s. per quarter. In Sardinia there was a duty of 5s. per quarter. In Tuscany the duty was a mere fraction. In Greece it was 2d. a quarter; and in Austria 38. per quarter; and he begged their Lordships to observe that Austria, possessing the rich corngrowing provinces of Hungary, Transylvania, and Galicia, nevertheless in the ports of Venice, Fiume, and Trieste, granted admission for the importation of foreign corn free of all duty. LORD ASHBURTON remarked that Trieste was a free port. The EARL of DALHOUSIE replied that he was quite aware of that; but the corn was admitted not into the ports only, but into the interior without the payment of any duty. In Spain and Portugal there was a total prohibition; and here he wished simply to mention one fact as showing what was the advantage or disadvantage of this description of protective duty on corn. The fact rested on the authority of official papers before their Lordships, and it was this-that from Portugal and Spain corn used to be purchased in the port of New York at 4s. 6d. per bushel, and brought for the supply of Andalusia; while wheat was to be had on the plains of Castile at 1s. 6d. per bushel, but which was entirely useless, because from the high cost of carriage it was impossible to bring it to a part where it could meet a profitable sale. It was undoubtedly true that Belgium had a corn 33s. a quarter. A nearly similar regulation was adopted in Holland. In Mecklenburgh a duty of 3 per cent was levied; in Hanover 6s. a quarter; and in Denmark 3s. a quarter. In France there was a high protective duty. In Russia, a duty of 14s. a quarter was imposed on the importation of wheat. These were true; but were these countries in the habit of regulating their duties upon the system advocated in that House? No; and it was unnecessary to go further back than the present year to show how different was their policy. One of the earliest steps taken by the Government of Holland this year was altogether to suspend the Corn Laws. In Russia also-hermetically-sealed Russia-the duties on the importation of corn were altogether removed; and in Belgium the Chambers were convoked in order to remit for a year the duties on corn. What analogy was there, then, in the course pursued by these countries in favour of a permanent protecting duty upon corn, or between their corn laws and those which it was desired by many of their Lordships to maintain? And what was the cause of their suspension of the importation duties? Did it arise from any great failure of the corn crops? No; but from the very same cause which had been treated with such distrust and discredit in that House-the failure of the potato crop. And yet some noble Lords believed it would have been possible for Her Majesty's Ministers, while foreign countries were so acting, to have come down to Parliament and have asked the corn consumers of Great Britain to grant vast sums of money to relieve the distress of the Irish people, while at the same time they maintained a duty of 18s. a quarter upon wheat. There was no alternative between that course and the suspension of the Corn Law for a time; and he would ask whether, if such a suspension had been adopted in this kingdom, it would not have been utterly impossible ever to attempt to restore the Corn Laws to their former position? It had been stated very powerfully by the noble Lord, and it had been frequently repeated by other noble Lords in the course of the debate, that the main object of a Corn Law was to prevent a country from being dependent upon foreign countries for their supplies of corn; and the permanence of the law of 1842had been advocated on the ground that, even under the operation of that law, this object | footmen who, if they were to propose to had been attained. It was said that the them to become independent of foreign quantity of corn produced in this country supplies of wool, and to wear clothes made was keeping pace with the demands of the of home wool, would not give warning topopulation; and a noble Friend of his morrow. But were they less dependent stated that the importations of corn for the upon foreign supplies with regard to the last twenty years had averaged 1,070,000 cotton manufacture? His noble Friend quarters per annum; while during the last had stated that the annual imports of year it had only been 308,000 quarters. cotton wool into this country amounted From this circumstance the inference was to many millions of pounds. Did not this drawn that of late years our dependence fact show how entirely, and hopelessly, upon foreign supplies had been diminished, they were dependent upon foreigners for and that production had kept pace with their supply? So it was with respect to the increase of the population. But they silk. So it was in a great degree with could not draw a correct inference from a respect to flax. They could not single average extending over so long a carry on a war or fire a shot without period as twenty-one years. The only way being dependent upon foreign supply for of arriving at a satisfactory result was to the articles used in war. This country take averages, as far as they could, for was dependent upon her exports and imequal periods. He held in his hand a re- ports in a great degree for her revenue, turn of the importations of corn into this and she was therefore dependent upon country from 1791 to 1840, from which it foreign nations for the maintenance of appeared that in the first ten years, from her credit. And has it been the case 1791 to 1800, the annual average importa- that in war foreign nations have stopped tions were 470,000 quarters; from 1801 to our supplies? From 1812 to 1814 they 1810, 555,000 quarters; from 1811 to were at war with the United States, from 1820, 429,000 quarters; from 1821 to which this country drew her supplies of 1830, 534,000 quarters; and from 1831 to cotton. Would it not have been death and 1840, 908,000 quarters. Now, in the five destruction to them if the United States years from 1841 to 1845, partly under the had stopped the supply of cotton to this operation of the new Corn Law, the average country? But that had not been the case; importation had been 1,807,000 quarters on the contrary in 1812 we imported annually, of which 1,583,000 quarters had 61,000,000 lbs.; in 1813, 50,000,000 lbs. ; been admitted for consumption. In the four and in 1814, 53,000,000 lbs. The China war years, from 1842 to 1845, under the new was another example, and our supplies of tea Corn Law, the average quantity annually during the period of the war were as great entered for consumption has been 1,064,500 as in any year preceding. The same quarters. Thus it appears, that from 1791 principle would govern other nations with to 1841 the largest annual importation was respect to corn. If we were dependent 908,000 quarters, while in the last four upon them for our supplies, we could get years the annual average entry for con- what we wanted, notwithstanding they sumption has been not less than 1,064,000 were at war with us, as had been the case quarters. It was therefore evident, upon during the war with Napoleon. But then the face of these returns, that the impor- his noble Friend said, "Look at the tation of foreign corn was increasing, that price!" Why, at other times the price our production has not kept pace with our was as high as in any of the years his noble demand, and that the existing law did not Friend had quoted. The price, too, had render us independent of supplies from other no effect upon the argument, which was, countries. Now he would ask their Lord- that if we were at war with other counships to consider for a single moment this tries we could not obtain supplies of corn question of dependence upon foreign coun- at all. During the course of the war tries. How many trades and employments in which we were engaged with the whole of life were there with respect to which of Europe, large imports of corn came they were almost hopelessly and entirely in every year. Even in 1810, we had imdependent for supplies upon foreign coun-portations, and importations too from tries? Let them take the case of the wool- France itself; and he maintained that, if len trade. There was not one of their Lordships who was not dependent upon foreign supplies for the coat he wore. Nay, there was not one of their Lordships' this country again required foreign supplies, those supplies would be got. The Government had been reproached for not stating what, in their opinion, the price The DUKE of RICHMOND: Go to the last Bill. The EARL of DALHOUSIE said, that if he did not mistake, the noble Duke had predicted precisely the same effects from the Bill of 1842, as he now prophesied from the operation of the present Bill. of corn would be under the new system. | giving, of course one average price. In He was not prepared to answer any demand the first three months of that period the difso unreasonable, or to pronounce what the ference was from 158. to 18s. In November actual and specific price of corn would be. of the same year, the difference was from 688. He would also respectfully ask their Lord- to 48s. ; and in the week ending the 29th, ships whether they were quite entitled to from 69s. to 388. In January, 1846, the demand that information from him? Would difference in the first week was between they have been prepared in any given 69s. and 44s., in the next 67s. to 40s., year, under the present system, to say and in the next 71s. to 42s.; and during what the price would be in the year fol- other periods of the same year, the differlowing? It had been stated that, during ence, instead of ranging at near 15s., as the last twenty-one years the average in former periods, was as much as 25s., price of wheat was 57s. But what con- 26s., 28s., 30s., 31s., and so on, while solation was it to the farmer to be told on the 28th of March it was between 698. what was the average price during a series and 32s., or a difference of 37s. In the of years, if it had been racing up and down face of these facts to talk of having equalized the scale during that period? In one prices by means of this law was a gross year the price had been 668.; three years fallacy. He had also the further evidence after 46., in the next it was 39s., of the contract price from the Victualling and in three years again 70s. How could Office for the years 1843, 1844, 1845, their Lordships, when there had been such and 1846, to show that the official price fluctuations under a system the boast of of 50s. 10d. was no accurate index of the which was that it prevented fluctuation, real supply and price. In January, 1843, ask him to name a specific price? the price of red wheat was 21. 9s. 3d. ; in February, 1844, 2l. 17s. 10d.; in 1845, 21. 6s. 10d.; and in February, 1845, 31. 5s., 5d.; and in white wheat the price in May 1843 was 21. 15s., in May 1843, 21. Es. in May 1846, 37. 11s. He therefore altogether repudiated the idea of attempting to fix a price. With respect to the general operation the law was likely to have, he was disposed to agree with the late Earl Spencer in the opinion he had formerly expressed in that House that everything as regarded price would remain not very The EARL of DALHOUSIE thought far from where it was, and that the adthe noble Duke had voted against that vantage of the measure would consist not Bill; but it was immaterial for the pur-in giving that cheap bread' for which poses of his argument. He would go there had been a cry, but in the steadiness to the last Bill. The present law had of trade, and the encouragement which the proved to demonstration that the whole agriculture of the country would derive from system of averages was a fiction. The the increased stimulus given by it to our noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had boasted of manufactures. One false premise seemed to the great fixedness and steadiness of price lie at the foundation of all the arguments on that had followed the law of 1842. The this question-it was that there would be average price of the last year, 50s. 10d., an enormous importation of foreign grain had also been pointed to as a proof of the under this measure. Whence was this abundance of corn in this country. He supply to come? It seemed to be generally maintained that that price of 50s. was no assumed that Germany, Denmark, Poland, index whatever to the actual quantity of Russia, some Austrian provinces, and the corn, or to the steadiness of price: it was United States, were the countries from only a proof of the inferiority of the qua- which the grain was to come. lity. He held in his hand a return for the Lords who entertained those apprehensions last twelve months of the average prices never attempted to state in what quantiat the different returning market towns, ties this grain would come, and where it not of the highest and lowest prices in each was to come from. He maintained that town, but of the highest average and the no such quantities as were anticipated lowest average price returned in each could or would come. Mr. Jacobs, in 1828. week from the returning towns, each town visited the countries in the north of Eu The DUKE of RICHMOND said, he never did anything of the sort. He did not vote for that Bill; but he probably should have done so if he had happened to have been in the House. But noble rope, by order of the Government, and reported that they could not send to this country a larger quantity than they then sent. In 1842, another gentleman was sent to the same countries to make the same inquiries; the result was embodied in the consulate returns, and it was there stated that the whole average amount which those countries could send to this country was 2,200,000 quarters of grain. There was nothing whatever to contradict, not the general assertion, but the facts stated by that gentleman, to show that no great quantity could be imported into this country at all. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) perfectly credited the statement of the noble Lord opposite as to the virgin soil and fertile plains to be found in various countries in Europe. He did not dispute that there were millions on millions of acres on which corn might be raised; but what was their value if the corn was not attainable? As well might noble Lords point to the plains of South America, where thousands upon thousands of cattle were roaming about, and argue that under the new law these thousands and thousands would be imported here. There was no doubt of the capacity of those countries which were so dreaded; there was no doubt of the abundance; but distance rendered the capacity and the abundance unavailable. He would not fatigue their Lordships with calculations as to trade and carrying charges. With regard to the produce of Germany, and of Hungary, which found an exit northward, it went by rivers, which in winter were frozen, and in summer were during long periods dried up for navigation. That which found an exit southward was transported in bullock-carts a distance of 250. miles by a very tedious mode of conveyance, raising the charges to a very high amount. So that though in those countries the produce was large it was totally useless. The same was the case with Spain no country could be more fertile; but though corn could be got at a very moderate rate in Castile, yet before it could be brought to the markets, as mentioned in Mr. Jacobs' report, the price it would have reached rendered it more profitable for the consumer to obtain their supply from America. In the continental countries of which so much was said, cultivation was carried on by serfs; neither they nor their landlords had means for improving agriculture; their implements were of the rudest kind; and he did venture to think, that nothing had been stated by any noble Lord to invalidate the testimony of the official documents long since laid on the Table, to the fact that the quantities of corn introduced from those countries would be extremely limited, and that the price at which they could be brought was above anything that would yield such a return as to encourage importation. Their Lordships had heard it stated the other evening, that 5,000,000 of quarters could, in three years, be brought into this country, purchased at Galatz, where the corn was produced at a price of 14s., and of excellent quality. He would not read letters to their Lordships, but he would lay before them documents infinitely more authoritative, namely, actual bills of sale. He held three of these in his hand in reference to cargoes of grain imported from Galatz. They were purchased in the abundant year, 1844. They were not detained in warehouse, yet on each transaction there was a loss to a very great extent. They were sold on account of Mr. R. Gardner, Manchester. The first was purchased on July 29, 1844, and the price paid was not 14s., but 21s. and 23s. 9d. per quarter. They were sold in bond on October 25, and the balance of loss was 10s. 4d. per quarter. Another cargo purchased in June, 1844, for 23s. 9d., was sold on October 12, and the balance of loss was 14s. 11d. per quarter. A third cargo purchased about the same time with the others for 23s. 9d. per quarter, was sold after a similar interval, when the balance of loss was 12s. 3d. per quarter. There were the invoices sent to him by a gentleman of high respectability; but they bore evidence on their face of the respectability of the parties and the transaction itself, for the agents in the transaction were Messrs. Baring Brothers. But supposing there was a large importation, it was not an entire surplus. The population was increasing, and it was necessary to find increasing supplies. And abroad the same necessity would be felt. [Lord ASHBURTON observed, they did not consume wheat abroad.] If they grew for themselves, they could not grow wheat to send it here. In the course of late years the population of the different countries which were regarded with such apprehensions had greatly increased. Such was the case in Russia, Norway, the German States, and all the others. The population of Prussia had increased from 12,000,000, in 1825, to 15,000,000, in 1843. In Austria it increased, between 1820 and 1840, | it the opinion in the United States from 30,000,000 to 37,000,000. In themselves. The wheat producing States Russia, from 56,000,000, in 1827, to were limited to certain districts of country 59,000,000, in 1837. In France, from-they were all in the extreme west; and, 31.000,000, in 1826, to 35,000,000, in consequently, whatever was produced there 1845. But there was another considera- could not reach this country from their tion which had not been fully dwelt own ports except at a large charge. Let upon in this debate with the weight that them trace what had been the increase of ought to be attributed to it, and that supply and of export in that country for a was, the increase of our own population. considerable number of years. He had the There had been a total failure of proof to official tables of the States before him for show that they could adopt fresh land to the period from 1791 to 1840; and, almeet the wants of the increased population, though it appeared that the increase in or that they could increase the produce of produce had been enormous, as was adthat land for the same purpose. The mitted, yet the increase of population had Sanitary Report (p. 330) says-been concurrent; and it appeared that now they had for export a smaller amount than they had fifty years ago. In 1790 the population was 3,900,000, and the wheat lent to an annual increase of numbers of the ave "It may be of interest to observe, that as the whole population grows in age, the annual increase in numbers may be deemed to be equivarage ages of the community. If they were main-exported to foreign countries amounted to tained on the existing average of territory to the 4,750,000 bushels, being 28 per cent of population in England, the additional numbers the whole produce. In 1810 the popuwould require an annual extension of one fifty- lation had risen to 7,000,000, and the seventh of the present territory of Great Britain, amount of wheat exported was 4,000,000 possessing the average extent of roads, commons, of bushels, being 14 per cent of the whole hills, and unproductive land. The extent of new territory required annually would form a county produce. In 1820 the population was larger than Surrey, or Leicester, or Nottingham, 9,600,000: the export of wheat, 5,900,000 or Hereford, or Cambridge, and nearly as large as bushels, being 15 per cent of the whole produce. In 1840 the population had in"To feed the annually increased population, supposing it to consume the same proportions of creased to 17,000,000, and the amount of meat that is consumed by the population of Man-wheat exported was only 11,000,000 of chester and its vicinity (a consumption which appears to me to be below the average of the consumption in the metropolis), the influx of 230,000 of new population will require for their consumption an annual increase of 27,327 head of cattle, 70,319 sheep, 64,715 lambs, and 7,194 calves, to raise which an annual increase of 81,000 acres of good pasture land would be required." Warwick. In the last thirty years there had been an increase of 15 per cent in the population in each duennial period. Did their Lordships realize the fact that, since this Bill now under consideration was introduced to Parliament, there were 100,000 and upwards more to feed? Was it in their power to increase the produce of the country in the same proportion? No proof of that had ever been attempted. He did not believe that that immense increase of supply would take place; but if it did, would it be more than sufficient to meet the increase of population that was constantly going on? Before he left this part of the subject, he would direct their Lordships' attention to the question of supply from the United States. He knew that it was usual to treat the United States as an inexhaustible source of food. Such, however, was not the experience of past years, nor was bushels, or 14 per cent of the whole produce, that is to say, only one-half that it was formerly. That was the amount of wheat exported by the United States; and yet they were not without markets to encourage export during that time, for the markets of Cuba, of our own West Indies, and of South America, were thrown open to them. Their Lordships would see, then, that, with the increase of population that was going on in the United States, the increase of produce would be required at home, and there would be nothing like the enormous exportation that was expected from them into this country. Again, the prices of New York ruled at about 40s.; and in addition to that, there would be the cost of carriage before it could reach this country; so that, as with respect to the Continent, the expectation of an enormous importation was not borne out by facts. But then it was said, "Why try this experiment in this great country?' He answered, it was not now tried for the first time. It had been tried here before, and had perfectly succeeded; for from 1766 to 1791, we had practically an entirely free trade in corn. No doubt taxation at that time was not so heavy |