CORN-LAWS AND FREE TRADE.
This long-agitated and great question formed a prominent subject of debate during this session. The first occasion which led to a general discussion of the policy of the protective laws as regards agriculture, was furnished by a motion made by Mr. Cobden, on the 13th March, “for a select committee to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged existing agricultural distress, and into the effects of legislative protection upon the interests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and farm-labourers.” In support of this motion Mr. Cobden endeavoured to prove the existence of distress among the farmers; asserting that half of them were in a state of insolvency, and that the other half were paying rents out of their capital, and were fast hastening to the same melancholy condition. Mr. Cobden next contended that there was a want of security in tenure, and that this fact not only prevented the application of capital, but that it also kept the land in a bad state of cultivation. The farmer without a lease was afraid that if he made any improvement in his farm, he should be called upon to pay a higher rent; and he proved this fact by reference to the language used by many distinguished members of agricultural associations. He asked why land should not be let on the same condition as manufactories, which were let with a schedule of the state of the manufactory; and when the tenant left them he was bound to make compensation for any damage which it might have suffered. Having advocated the plan of leasing farms at great length, Mr. Cobden proceeded to contend that a free trade in corn would be more beneficial to the farmers and to the labourers than to any other class of the community. He had thought so before the new tariff; and he contended so now with tenfold confidence. He then described the lamentable condition of the agricultural peasantry; and asked the landlords, after they had brought their labourers to such a melancholy state, whether they could have anything to fear from risking this inquiry? What had government done for them in their financial scheme? Nothing that was calculated, if he had heard aright, to benefit the agricultural population. Well, then, what would they do? Protection had been a failure when it reached a prohibitory duty of 80s. a quarter; it had been a failure when it reached the pivot price of 60s.; and it was a failure now when they had got a sliding-scale; for they had admitted the lamentable condition of their tenantry and peasantry. Let them accede, then, to his proposition for a committee, and he would pledge himself to explode the fallacy of agricultural protection, and to put an end to the present system within two years from the publication of its report. Mr. S. Herbert, secretary at war, announced that government would meet Mr. Cobden’s motion with a direct negative. On a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and twenty-one.
On the 3rd of June Mr. Ward resumed his exertions to obtain a select committee to inquire into the existence of the peculiar burdens and exemptions of the landed interests. Taking advantage of an admission contained in a speech of Sir James Graham, that during the last twelve months pauperism had diminished, and trade and commerce had improved in the country because the price of wheat was low, Mr. Ward said that he was not going to underrate the benefit produced by an abundant harvest, but he believed that still greater benefit had been effected by the liberal policy of government. The idea that there were any peculiar burdens on the land, was a fallacy peculiar to English gentlemen brought up in the school of the corn-laws. He denied that the land-tax, poor-rates, tithes, county-rates, highway-rates, the malt-tax, and similar impositions, were peculiar burdens on land; but if they were, he contended that there were to be set against them the exemptions enjoyed by the land in not being liable to the legacy and probate duty, and in the cultivation of it being relieved from the horse-tax, from the tax on husbandry servants if employed for domestic services, and various other taxes. Mr. Ward moved for a select committee of inquiry into this subject; and his motion was supported by Dr. Bowring, and Messrs. Cobden and Vernon Smith. Sir John Tyrell opposed it, as did also Messrs. Sidney Herbert and Newdegate. On a division it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and nine.
The subject of the corn-laws was taken into more complete consideration on the 26th of May, when, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved the following resolutions:—“That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this house a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. That those laws which impose duties, usually called protective, tend to impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation. That the present corn-law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to secure. That this house will take the said laws into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of her majesty’s subjects. That the freedom of industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial settlement which now prevails in England and Wales. That a systematic plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the country where the deficiency of employment Iras been most injurious to the labourers in husbandry. That the improvements made of late years in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion, have been seen with satisfaction by this house. That this house will be ready to give its support to measures founded on liberal and comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further extension of religious and moral instruction. That a humble address be presented to her majesty to lay the foregoing resolutions before her majesty.” In support of these resolutions, Lord John Russell made a long and comprehensive speech, embracing the several topics to which they had reference. Adverting to the corn-laws, he said, that experience had shown that the present system was founded in error, and produced the very evil against which it was intended to guard. The graduated scale was a complete failure, and equally injurious to the purchaser and consumer. It was contrary to all true commercial principles, and was perfectly ruinous to the farmer. It also tended to check all improvements in agriculture, and to render the cultivator of the soil careless as to the system of cultivation which he pursued. Mr. Sharman Crawford moved as an amendment that the following words be inserted after the word “opportunity,” in the first clause:—“To give immediate attention to the claims, so repeatedly urged in the petitions of the people, for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage, as well as—.” Sir James Graham, in reply, said that he agreed to the first resolution moved by Lord John Russell, but not to the rest; and, therefore, he moved the previous question. The house divided on Mr. Crawford’s amendment, which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and fifty-three against thirty-three. Sir James Graham then moved the previous question, which was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and four.
Mr. C. Villiers, according to his annual custom, on the 10th of June submitted to the house of commons a motion for the appointment of a committee of the whole house for the purpose of considering his resolutions for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and fifty-four against one hundred and thirty-two.