THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.
At this time a great many petitions had been presented to both houses of parliament on the subject of the corn-laws. On the 18th of February Lord Brougham moved that these petitions should “be referred to a committee of the whole house, and that evidence be heard at the bar.” The Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond and Earl Stanhope opposed the motion; and Lord Melbourne thought that the plan proposed would have no other result than the obstruction of the business of the house, and to perplex and embarrass the question itself. The Duke of Wellington said that the proposed mode of inquiry was without a precedent, and contended that without protection agriculture could not prosper. The reduction of the duty even a trifle too much might involve the country in the utmost difficulty, by rendering the cultivation of the soil impossible, and thereby ruining a large class of industrious and at present happy people. The motion was negatived without a division.
The subject of the corn-laws was debated in the house of commons on the following day. Mr. Villiers moved, “that certain persons be heard at the bar of the house by their agents, witnesses, or counsel, in support of the allegations of the petition presented to the house on the 15th instant, complaining of the operation of the corn-laws.” In support of this motion, Mr. Villiers considered at great length the effect of the corn-laws upon the manufactures and commerce of the country. Sir Francis Burdett objected to the course proposed; but, at the same time, he stated that it was his conviction that the landed interest, in which he was himself concerned, was under erroneous impressions on the subject. The debate which followed brought out speeches from many of the men who afterwards took so prominent a part in promoting or opposing the repeal of the corn-laws—such as Mr. Mark Philips (member for Manchester), Lord Stanley, Lord Howick, and Sir Robert Peel. The first-named made a useful and practical speech; Lord Stanley an absurd one; Lord Howick was as capricious and crotchetty as on most other occasions; Sir Robert Peel repeated himself and other hack orators on the side of the protectionists. Mr. Villiers made a calm and effective reply, in which he especially directed his skill as a debater to the exposure of the fallacies of Sir Robert Peel, whose ignorance or partizanship he handled with a calm and dignified severity. On a division the motion was rejected by three hundred and sixty-one against one hundred and seventy-two.