at the preposition he has thought it worth while to submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had before an unbroken army of champions of the existing lawsome may have wished for some modification of that law, but undoubtedly the majority would have preferred the old law to the new one. The right hon. VicePresident was at pains to read to us the opinions of adverse parties, and to show that the right hon. Gentleman had dissatisfied all. There were some of his party anxious to keep the law as it was; from them he can receive no gratitude. There were others ready to agree to some change, to effect an adjustment of the question, and put an end to agitation: has he pleased them ?-just the reverse; he has increased excitement and perpetuated agitation. Was admission, that the existing protection which we have so often assailed, but which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends so obstinately defended, is a great deal too high, and ought not to be retained. This is a concession, though to be sure one that is robbed of all its grace by the recommendation of the right hon. Leader to his friends to part with it, only because it does them no good. And so the right hon. Baronet recommends his plan to his Friends by saying," You have now a great superfluous protection, and vast unnecessary odium. My plan is one by which the odium will be diminished, but the protection in reality untouched." The second admission of the right hon. Gentleman is, that the agriculturists as a class are not entitled to any legislative protection whatever. That is a doctrine broadly and une-it to check frauds that he interfered ?-he quivocally laid down, and cannot be departed from in future. The whole de fence of the Corn-law, then, is narrowed to that miserable, and shallow, and untenable doctrine of non-dependence on other countries-a doctrine so narrow and so ignorant, so replete with misery, and starvation, and self-destruction, that it may be called the doctrine of insanity: for what is it but insanity to say, that your millions shall be stinted upon home produce rather than well fed upon the productions of another nation? Is there any other country in the world in which such shocking and disgraceful occurrences could take place as occurred here in 1837? Under the operation of these laws you had distress in the Highlands-a distress unprecedented -thousands perishing for want of bread. At the very moment when representations of this distress were crowding upon the Government, some merchants in London, who had a quantity of wheat in bond, and who found that its being kept in warehouse was an accumulating loss to them, asked permission of the Government to take it out of bond and to destroy it. The permission was given; the wheat was sunk in the Thames under the inspection of the Custom-house officers, and that occurred at one end of the kingdom of which a portion of the subjects were starving at another. What a commentary is this upon your Corn-law! If it had not been for the care of our landlords to make these people independent of foreigners, this corn would have saved many a poor family from starvation. The more I consider this question, and the position of the right hon. Gentleman towards it, the more I wonder denied, or at least made light of their ex- man finds strength. That majority is powerful-but not so powerful as truth. Can a majority turn back the truth? Can it sanctify monopoly? Can it force prosperity from restriction? You may plume yourself on your strength-you may glory in your anticipated majority, but the right hon. Baronet has found before this, that a minority battling for the right is more formidable than a majority committed to error; and the longer he perpetuates that contest, in which he must be defeated at last, the more calamitous will that defeat be found in the loss of something to his followers more valuable than the law on which "their station in society" depends. Mr. Cowper thought, that the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws would produce misery amongst the agricultural classes, and consequently could not support it. But in voting against the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he was far from approving of the proposition of the Government. He, at the same time, confessed that that proposition was an improvement of the present law; but the fundamental evil of the sliding scale still remained, and whilst that remained some change must be necessary. By that principle the currency was disturbed. A supply from the United States altogether prevented-a supply from Europe and Asia diminished and impeded-and consequent distress caused to the people of England. Sir R. Bateson felt himself called upon, as an Irish landlord, to notice some of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member had accused the Irish landlords of causing the distress of the people of that country by exacting high rents. No man could reprobate such a course of proceeding more than he (Sir R. Bateson) did. His principle had always been to live and let live. He would, however, remind the hon. Member for Waterford, that it did not altogether depend upon the will of the landlords whether rents should be reduced in Ireland. In that country estates were held on long leases for three lives or sixty years. They were frequently also under the control of Chancery, or trustees who had no power to reduce rents. He was greatly astonished to hear the hon. Member for Waterford, or any Irish Member, avow that he would vote for the repeal of the Corn-laws. One of the great sources of discontent among the people of Ireland was the want of employment. There were no manufactures in that country to afford occupation to the population, and if cultivation were abandoned many counties would present the appearance of deserts The price of wheat did not affect the great mass of the Irish population, for the chief article of their food was the potatoe and oatmeal. Cheap bread would be of no use to them, because they could not afford to buy it. Oats was the important crop for Ireland, and he regretted that the right hon. Baronet's plan did not afford greater protection to that article. The manufacon his side of the House with being acturers had no right to taunt hon. Members tuated by selfish motives. Those who lived in glass houses ought not to be the first to throw stones. The House and the country remembered the opposition which the manufacturers offered to the bill for limiting the hours of infants in factories to eight hours a day. Would any one work his horse more than ten hours a day? And yet, to his grief and horror, he had heard Gentlemen in that House advocate the system under which children were worked more than horses. When the manufacturers talked of the men who had made their own fortunes starving at their doors, why did they not work the children only half the usual time, and give the others some employment? Mr. E. Protheroe said, he had the good fortune to be the representative of a manufacturing borough which had not been visited by distress, and he attributed that circumstance to the great variety of the branches of trade in which his constituents were occupied. Notwithstanding this, however, he, representing the opinion of his constituents, was prepared to vote for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. He was not alarmed at the word "now," and was ready to give his adhesion to the resolution which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had proposed. If it could be proved that the agriculturists would sustain any injury from the measure, he had no doubt that the nation which had given twenty millions to the West-India slave-owners would fully compensate them. It appeared to him that it was a proper description of the Corn-laws to say that they enacted starvation. It was easy to prove, that the rate of wages had increased in proportion as food had been more abundant. About the close of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, wages rose 10 per cent., and the average price of corn declined 10 per cent. The importance of the home market had been much dwelt on, but those who insisted so strongly on the value of that market, seemed to forget that the manufacturers formed an important class among those on whom the home market depended. It was kind on the part of the agriculturists to show so much solicitude for the manufacturers, but the manufacturers, were quite able to take care of themselves, and had sufficient ingenuity to find the best market, if they were only left to themselves. He did not believe that to provide the people with corn would at all tend to menace the independence of the country; on the contrary, it would be all the better able to contend with its enemies in case of a war. had called the attention of the House to the geographical position of these islands as placed between two great continentsthe old world and the new; and then the hon. Member represented us as refusing to both, a supply of our manufactures, by shutting out their productions. "Continents "was a term of wide signification, and, perhaps, it would be hardly necessary that he should trouble the House by examining very minutely into the systems on which the several nations of the continent of Europe conducted their commercial relations. He should not then waste the time of the House by recapitulating the heads of the Russian, Prussian, and Danish tariffs; but he should observe that the consumption of the British manufactures by the populations of those countries varied between 3d. and 5d. for each individual per annum. It was not necessary, for his present purpose, to occupy the time of the House by any detailed investigation of our commercial intercourse with those countries; he should rather come at once to the France. It had been said in the course of the present discussions, as well as on former occasions, that we shut our doors against French produce shut our doors! Had we not twice altered the duties which we Sir Howard Douglas said, at the period of his election, being aware that measures of vast national moment would be brought under the early notice of Parliament, he had determined that on none of those questions should aught of doubt or suspi-position in which we stood with respect to cion rest on the accordance of his views with those of his constituents. He, therefore, had taken care to explain fully his principles and opinions on all matters, relating whether to the agricultural, the commercial, or the manufacturing interests; he had declared explicitly that he was, and should continue, a firm supporter of the "protective" system; but had ever declared his willingness to revise and modify the degrees of protection to each interest severally, for the general advantage of all. He had gone into the commercial history of every country in the world for the purpose of showing that in no country were the free-trade principles thoroughly carried out; thence deducing the certainty of great and dangerous evils arising from the abolition, as to agriculture, as well as other interests, of protection. With these declarations he had offered himself a candidate for Liverpool, and had experienced the honou-he might call it the singular good fortune of being elected without opposition. He had a right, therefore, to conclude that the opinions on which he was prepared in that House to act were agreeable to his constituents. He begged it to be distinctly understood, that he considered himself there, not as the representative of any particular "class," or "interest," but as one bound to consider the general interests of the community. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Wolverhampton, charged upon French wines? Had we not opened the ports of our East Indian possessions, and had we not facilitated to the French people the exportation of coals, iron, machinery, and tools? But to us they made no return-no diminution of duty. The fact was, that articles of British manufacture were positively or virtually prohibited, with the exception only of those required for the improvement of arts and manufactures. Eleven pence per annum for each individual composing the French nation, was about the average value of the manufactured goods imported by France from this country. Pass we then to the United States of America; and here he paused for a moment, to refer to the sentiments of the noble Lord the Member for London, previous to doing which, however, he wished to express his regret that that noble Lord was not in his place, entertaining, as he did, the greatest respect for that noble Lord. He respected his abilities and his character, and remembering the relation in which they recently stood towards each other, he could not refrain from expressing his strong sense of the kind and generous manner in which he had been supported by the noble Lord. Though he was the nominee of a different Ministry, yet the noble Lord had, with the weight which belonged to his office, sustained him in his administration of the government of the Ionian Islands-an administration which he rejoiced to think had proved satisfactory to the Government at home, beneficial to the Ionian people, and not discreditable to himself. The noble Lord had said that the manufactures of this country, were shut out from the United States of America, because we refused to take the staple productions of those States. He desired to learn upon what foundation such a statement rested. The facts known to the public, and of which he in common with the rest of the world possessed evidence, could leave not a shadow of doubt upon the mind of any man that this was a statement resting upon no solid basis. What were the facts? In the year 1840, there were imported into the emporium which he had the honour to represent, 1,160,000 bales of cotton; nearly the whole of the cotton used for manufactures in this country came from the United States of America. Under such a state of things it was absurd beyond measure to say that we shut out the produce of America. It could hardly fail to be in the recollection of every Gentleman who heard him, that we had lowered the duty on American cotton to please the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester; that was received as a boon, and in the next breath the Government were told that they were shutting out the produce of the United States. In the course of these discussions, and on many similar occasions, free-trade had been in the mouth of almost every speaker; but he confessed himself one of those who thought that what people called free-trade was a sheer absurdity. It was the opinion of all men who exercised common sense upon political subjects, that a new country exporting raw material to a highly civilized and manufacturing nation, ought in return to take back some portion of its own productions, when converted into manufactured goods. Now, he begged of the House to look at the position in which we stood towards the United States of America. We took their raw material, but they refused to take our manufactured goods. Considerable importance had been attached to a judicious observation made by an American President, when he said, that no country ought to permit itself to depend upon foreign supply for the necessary articles of life, and least of all, for the food of the people. Such was the language now held-such were the principles upon which the government of America was now carried on, but they were not contrary to the principles adopted in the earlier days of Republicanism. The system was unchanged; it was the protective system, and whatever alteration of circumstances might arise, it was the fixed resolution of every successive government in America neither to abolish nor relax their protective system. To support this opinion, he had made brief extracts from the annual message of every President since the days of Washington downwards, and, with the permission of the House he would read them. The first, of course, was from a message of Washington's: it was his eighth annual message, and bore date the 7th of December, 1796. It was in these words : "Congress have repeatedly directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence, not to insure a continuance of their efforts, in every way which shall appear eligible." The next extract which he should read to the House was from the eighth annual address of Mr. Jefferson, dated November the 8th, 1808, and was in the following terms: "The extent of this conversion is daily increasing,(viz., the application of industry little doubt remains that the establishments and capital to internal manufactures), and formed, and forming will, under the auspices of cheaper material and subsistence, the freedom of labour from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions, become permanent." Such was the language of President Jefferson. Now, let the House listen to the words of Mr. Madison, in his seventh annual message, dated December 6th, 1815. These were his words : "However wise the theory may be, which leaves to the sagacity and interest of individuals, the application of their industry and resources, there are in this, as in other cases, condition which the theory itself implies, of a exceptions to the general rule. Besides the reciprocal adoption by other nations, experience teaches that so many circumstances must occur in introducing manufacturing establishments, that a country may remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some respects very peculiarly fitted, for circumstances, giving a powerful impulse to carrying them on with success. Under these manufacturing industry, it has made among us a progress, and exhibited an efficiency which justify the belief that, with a protection not more than is due to the enterprizing citizens, whose interests are now at stake, it will be- ting duties upon articles of foreign growth or come at an early day, not only safe against oc- manufacture, is that which will place our own casional competitors from abroad, but a source in fair competition with those of other counof domestic wealth, and even of external com-tries; and the inducements to advance even a merce," step beyond this point, are controlling in regard to those articles which are of primary necessity in time of war." He now came to President Monroe, who on the 5th of March, 1817, addressed Congress as follows: "Our manufactures find a generous encouragement by the policy which patronizes domestic industry; and the surplus of our produce a steady and profitable market by local wants in less favoured parts at home." In a previous message, (his first annual message) on the 2nd December, 1817, he says, "Our manufactories will require the continued attention of Congress. The capital employed in them is considerable, and the knowledge required in the machinery and fabric of all the most useful manufactures is of great value. Their preservation, which depends on due encouragement, is connected with high interests of the nation." The same President, on the 3rd of December, 1821, proceeds, in a similar spirit, to say, that "Possessing, as we do, the raw materials in such vast amount, with a capacity to augment them to an indefinite extent, raising within the country, aliment of every kind to an amount far exceeding the demand for home consumption, even in the most unfavourable years, and to be obtained always at a very moderate price; skilled also, as our people are, in the mechanic arts, and in every improvement calculated to lessen the demand for, and the price of labour, it is manifest, that their success in every branch of domestic industry may and will be carried, under the encouragement given by the present duties, to an extent, to meet any demand which, under a fair competition, may be made on it." Again, we find him saying: "It cannot be doubted, that the more complete our internal resources, and the less dependent we are on foreign powers for every national, as well as domestic purpose, the greater and more stable will be the public felicity. By the increase of domestic manufactures, will the demand for the rude materials at home be increased, and thus will the dependence of the several parts of our union on each other, and the strength of the union itself, be proportionably augmented." From the year 1816 to the year 1832, the protective system of the United States was carried to its utmost limit; in fact, protection was overdone, and without abandoning the principle upon which they had always acted, the American Government relaxed the degree of its severity per annum. They reduced by one-tenth per annum a duty which had been (as we understood) 50 per cent. By this act, the compromise act of 1833, the then excessive duties, were reduced gradually until, in June 1842, they should come to 20 per cent. and then be permanent. On the 4th December, 1832, we find President Jackson using this language in his address to Congress: "That manufactures adequate to the supply of our domestic consumption would, in the abstract, be beneficial to our country, there is no reason to doubt; and to effect their estacitizen who would not, for a while, be willing blishment, there is, perhaps, no American to pay a higher price for them." to the House, were quite sufficient to show He hoped the extracts which he had read that the Americans proceeded upon the protective system, and carried it to as high a point as existing circumstances permitted. Whatever had been done or might be done by us, the United States would not abandon their protective system. Revenue necessities would oblige them to re-augment those duties. For himself, he must be allowed to say that he admired their lofty policy which would not sacrifice independence and power to any considerations of speculative wealth, and he admired the disposition of the French people to adopt that principle likewise. They, too, had their doctrinaires who endeavoured to teach them that it was wise to buy only where they could buy the cheapest; but neither the French nor the United States would listen to such theories. It might be a doctrine of political economy to buy at the cheapest market; but political economy was not always political wisdom; it sometimes became political prodigality. At the late election he told his friends not to inscribe on his banners "free-trade;" that which he wanted was "fair trade." He did not understand that one-sided policy "The general rule to be applied in gradua- which, under the name of free-trade, pro He would next, with the permission of the House, read an extract from the first annual message of President Jackson, which was addressed to Congress on the 8th of December, 1829: |