and permanently depend upon the proportion of the supply to the demand, and the proportion of supply from abroad was in no degree likely to be considerable. But supposing the supply to be even considerable, the apprehensions expressed on this subject were still, in his mind, exaggerated and fallacious; nor was it even probable that we should have to depend upon a foreign supply to such an extent as to endanger the interests of our own agriculture. A great deal of this apprehension had been propagated, which was negatived by the papers on the table, especially with regard to the supply derived from what was called our natural enemy. He would readily admit, that if it could be rendered apparent, that, in any event, we should have to depend upon France for food, a protecting duty, as it was termed, should be immediately granted to avert such a calamity; and to this grant he would accede, not from any commercial jealousy, which he would always deprecate, but from political jealousy, to which it would, in such a case, be our duty to attend. What was the fact? Was France a corn-exporting country? Did it not appear from papers on the table that our great import of corn had been, not from France, but from Holland, and from Belgium, the sovereign of which was of our own creation? Thus we derived a supply of corn, not from a natural enemy, as France was denominated, but from our own probably permanent ally. But France could never be regarded as a great exporting country of corn. If she were, it would be a proof of her impoverishment for no rich country was ever a great exporter of corn. No: the poor country was always the exporter of that article to the rich, for which she received manufactures in return. France had in fact become, for the last year, an exporter of corn, in consequence of an extremely redun

dant harvest, and from the same cause she was an exporter in the year 1810. But France could never be expected to rival this country in agriculture; for, from every information that had reached us, her system of agriculture was exceedingly inferior to our own, while her grain was also materially inferior in quality. How then could it be apprehended, that we should have to depend upon that nation for supply in any event, especially when we had to look not only to Holland as a medium for furnishing the produce of the banks of the Rhine, but to Flanders, to the Baltic, to Poland, and to America? With a peace, indeed, so consolidated as the gentlemen on the other side promised, he thought all apprehension on this score quite visionary. But even calculating upon the renewal of war, and the re-appearance of some extravagant tyrant, who, with a combination of all the powers of Europe, would speculate upon our total exclusion from continental commerce, he should still think such an apprehension groundless; for it was notorious from experience, that even when the experiment of this exclusion was made, namely, from 1810 to 1812, a larger importation had taken place into this country, especially from France, than was ever known within the same compass at any former period. The apprehension, then, of depriving this country of foreign supply, must, under any circumstances, be regarded as totally chimerical.”

Independently of these considerations, it was contended that it was impossible, under either system of policy, to prevent a part of the inferior lands of this country from going out of cultivation; and that, therefore, if this circumstance is to be followed by the consequences apprehended from it, these consequences must take place at any rate. This argument was stated by Earl Grey and Mr Horner, who

maintained, that no protection could be offered to the English grower against the cultivators of Ireland, who could produce corn at a cheaper rate than in England, and who would be consequently able to undersell the English growers in their own markets; and that, therefore, the cultivators of inferior lands in England would not only have to contend with the cultivator of the richer soils in this country, but with the growers of Ireland, both of whom would be able to undersell them; the consequence of which would be, that these inferior lands could no longer be cultivated.

But, it was further said, it has been found from experience that it is not by a system of importation that our agriculture is injured. Mr Baring observed, that "the great cause of the increase of importation of late years, was the increase in the population of the country, the increase of our manufactures, and our diffe. rent establishments. From these circumstances we had become a great importing country, notwithstanding which, the prices had always continued high. This made quite against the argument, that, when importation of foreign corn was suffered, prices would be low. For the last twenty years we had continually imported corn, and the excess was greater than at any time before on record. We had never before imported one-half of what we had imported during the last twenty years. One would think, on the principles of the proposers of the measure, that this excess would have had the effect of discouraging our agriculture. Now, what was the fact? There never was such an improvement in our agriculture as had taken place during the last fifteen or twenty years. This not only disproved the argument that importation was injurious to our agriculture, but it shewed also that the increased importation had arisen from an increa

sed population, and not from any detriment to our own agriculture." Si milar observations were made by Mr Calcraft, who added, that "it was found that the great importation which had taken place did not at all interfere with the profits of the farmer. The farmer need not, in ordinary years, look with any degree of alarm at any importation; and from what he knew of the feeling of the farmers on this subject, he did not believe that they did look with alarm at it. The late meeting in Kent had not been generally at. tended by the farmers. The farmers throughout the country were, he be lieved, waiting with patience to see what the House would do for them, without troubling them with any solicitations."

It was, in the next place, maintained by the opponents of the measure, that it could not have the effect contemplated by its supporters, of rendering prices eventually steadier and lower than they would otherwise be. Mr Philips said, that "it seemed somewhat inconsistent to tell the House, that the effectual way to lower the price was to acquiesce in a measure expressly intended to raise it. But how (he asked) is this moderation and uniformity of price to be produced?by contracting the market of supply. Thus, while, in all other instances, moderation and uniformity of price are found to be in proportion to the extent of the market of supply, in the instance of corn, they are to be in proportion to the limitation of it; and, in a commodity peculiarly liable to be affected by the variation of the seasons, moderation and uniformity of price, and abundance, are to be attained by preventing importations from foreign countries correcting the effect of the varieties of climate, and a scanty harvest in our own. To him it appeared that no measure could be better calculated to produce directly opposite

mer.

consequences." It was maintained, that if the importation price was fixed at 80s., the price of corn in the market would never be lower than this; and Mr Baring supported this proposition by a reference to the history of the corn laws. "On looking back," he said, "it would be found, that an alteration on the importation price had always produced a corresponding and instantaneous change on the price in the market. Whenever they raised the protection to the grower, it was found that this rise was invariably followed by an increase of price to the consu For the five years preceding 1764, when an alteration took place, the price of the quarter of wheat was 1. 10s. 2d., and for the five years from 1764 to 1769, it was 21. 2s. 2d. The raising of the importation price in 1764, was therefore attended with a great corresponding rise to the consumer. That no rise of price took place for a long period before, was owing to government leaving alone the laws; for no material alteration in them had taken place for about sixtyfive years. Prices continued nearly the same from 1764 to 1794, during which period no alteration of the importation price had taken place. In 1794 the importation price was again altered. For the five years before 1794, the price was 21. 7s. the quarter; and for the five years from 1794 to 1799, it was 31. 4s. Thus it would be found, that a rise of price to the consumer had invariably followed every alteration in the importation price." With regard to the necessity of the measure, to guard against a fluctuation of prices, it was stated by Mr Horner, that "for the last seven years, when our importation of corn was greater than at any former period, the fluctuation was much less than during any period of the same duration since the revolution, and this fact he had ascer tained by examining the Eton Tables.

Within the last seven years, too, it was notorious that our agriculture had been in the most flourishing state,much more flourishing, indeed, than when it was most the fashion to grant bounties upon the export, and to im pose restrictions upon the import of coru. So much as to the pretence of a steady price, which was looked for as the result of the proposed measure. In his opinion, however, the best se curity for a steady price, that is, a fair price to the consumer, was not a measure, the witnesses adduced to support which deponed that 80s., or even 96s. was necessary to enable the farmer to grow corn, while its advocates argued that its tendency would be to reduce the price of that article,—but to leave the dealer in corn subject to this im pression, that, if he raised his price to an undue rate, corn would be im. ported. This impression, he conceived, and common sense would sanction the conception, would be the best means of keeping corn at a fair price, and correcting all excesses."

It was further objected to the proposed law, that, by raising the price of corn, it would raise the price of labour; the consequence of which would be, that our manufacturers would no longer be able to compete with fo reigners in the foreign markets. Mr Philips, after pointing out the manner in which the price of provisions acts upon the price of labour, and shewing that it is impossible for a high price of provisions to consist permanently with a low price of labour, proceeded to apply this principle to the case of our manufacturers. After making a calculation, from which it appeared that the excess of the price of labour in this country above that of France was 48 per cent., he wished it to be considered, what must be the effect of such an excessive price of labour employed in our manufactures, when compared with the low price of la

bour employed in the manufactures of France, and what an advantage it must give to the French manufacturers in their attempts to rival us on the continent. He said, "that we ought not to delude ourselves with the notion, that because our manufactures had hitherto been superior in some respects to those of other countries, that superiority would be easily maintained. Our advantage had been principally in our superior capital and establishments, and in the disciplined industry of our workmen. But capital did not belong exclusively to this country: It might easily be exported wherever it could be more profitably employed. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the cotton manufactures of France, but he had conversed with several gentlemen more capable than himself of judging correctly of them; and among the rest with the honourable member for Glasgow (Mr Kirkman Finlay), who had lately visited that country; and they all concurred in expressing their great surprise at the state of those manufactures, at the extraordinary progress which had been made in them during the war, and at the excellent fabrics which they produced." Mr Horner, after remarking that the necessary requisites to enable us to preserve our superiority in our manufactures were two, capital and skill, said, that "these were not necessarily domiciled in this country, but might, like any of the other goods of fortune, take to themselves wings and Ay away; and that it was no unfair or unreasonable thing to conjecture, that, if to the different difficulties un der which our manufacturers now laboured, were added the proposed regulations as to the price of corn, these would be speedily followed by a departure from this country of the capital and skill which had hitherto given life to our manufactures, seeing we were about, in the same breath, to VOL. VIII. PART I.

multiply the taxes on our manufactures, and to increase the price of corn."

The proposed law was represented, by some of its opponents, as an undue attempt to extend the system of pro. tection to the landed interest, at the expence of the consumers, the people at large. Mr Baring entered into a long statement to shew, that this measure would have the effect of making the people pay an enormous bounty for the support of the landed interest. The substance of what he said on this head is, that, had there been no corn laws, it appeared, from the prices in the neighbouring countries, that the price of corn in this country would only have been 45s.; but that, the pre sent importation price being 65s., it made a difference of 20;. per quarter, which was paid for the protection of the landed interest; and that this, on the whole amount of corn consumed in Britain, would amount to 18,750,000%. paid by the consumers, as a bounty for the support of the landed interest. He went on to shew, in the same way, that, if the importation price were raised to 80s. the bounty which would thus be paid by the people would amount to 32,750,000l. He further stated, that a result of a similar kind might be made out in another way. The number of acres in an arable state amounted at least to sixty millions. Every person who had read the reports would see, that, if no alteration took place in the corn laws, the rent of land must be diminished at least to the extent of 10s. an acre; but the pasture land must also be taken into the estimate. The question was, therefore, whether the country gentlemen should give up 10s. an acre all over the kingdom, or whether the consumers were to pay the growers a sum of 40 or 50 millions a year beyond what they would pay in other circumstances.

Were a reduction of rents over the

Ꭰ

The question was, what would so enable him? Of the 80s. per quarter, he would calculate, that the landlord obtained 20s. as his proportion, and that the remainder went to the tenant for profit, and for the discharge of the expences of tillage. Suppose that, instead of 20s. the owner of the land was to receive only 15s., and the profits and expences of the tenant were to be reduced in the same proportion, one fourth, that would leave 60s. as the price which ought to be named, after which grain might be imported into this country. In this way, if a farm were now let for 20007, a year, the landlord would only receive 1500l. in future, a diminution which he was able to afford.' As to the expences of cultivation, Mr Baring contended, that, "with the exception of taxes, there was not a single article of expence to which a farmer was exposed, that would not be diminished in the same rate with the price of the main article of subsistence." He instanced particularly the article of manure, and observed, that stable dung would of course be increased in quantity; for, if corn were so cheap, more horses would, be kept by persons who before were not able to afford them; and therefore manure would not only be greater in quantity, but cheaper in price. With regard to labour, the main expence to which the farmer is exposed, he affirmed, that there was no man who would venture to deny, that the price of la bour would be lowered by the fall of corn. As to the profits of the tenants, Mr Baring said, that "all men would acknowledge that the improvements in the situation, habits, and comfort of the tenants, had kept pace with those of the landlords, Formerly, a farmer thought it a high luxury if he was rich enough to enjoy his ale; but now, on entering their houses, you are not only treated with a bottle of Port, but sometimes even with Madeira.

kingdom to take place, it was contended, that it would produce all the advantages sought by the proposed measure. This would the more certainly happen, as not only the expence of cultivation must be diminished, in consequence of the fall in the price of corn, but the tenants could afford a considerable diminution of their profits. That landholders could afford to reduce their rents, was maintained by Mr Baring, on the ground that they enjoyed greater advantages in this country than in any other. "In France," he observed, " might be seen persons of large landed property living on the produce of that property, in the manner of the country gentlemen, and even the nobility, of this island, in former times. But it was only in this country that landed gentlemen could go to great towns, and have great disposable incomes to spend wherever they chose." The effects of the reduction of rent might be inferred from the depositions of some of the witnesses. Mr Brodie, a great Scotch farmer, deposed, that he rented land to the amount of 6000. per annum, and that some years ago he had only paid 2000l. or 28s per acre. Suppose this gentleman's present rent were reduced by the effects of peace, from 6000l. to 4000/., would not this, it was argued by Mr Baring, have a material operation on the price of the corn he grew? "It was estimated," he said, "that, of the price of the crops, the portion that came to the landlord on the best soils, was one third; on average soils, perhaps one fourth; and on the wet cold soils, so much talked of, only about one fifth. No man would pretend that it was fit, by means of an act of parliament, to keep up an adventitious rent for the benefit of the owner of the soil; or that the House should be called upon to do more than to enable the farmer to proceed with the cultivation.