THE CORN-LAWS AND FREE-TRADE QUESTION.
During this session, as Sir Robert Peel had proclaimed at its commencement the intention of government to maintain the recent settlement of the corn-laws, the exertions of the free-trade party in parliament were confined to two or three desultory motions, rather indicating their protest against the existing system than tending to practical results. On the 12th of March Mr. Cobden brought the corn-law question before the house of commons, in the shape of a motion for a committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on agricultural labourers and tenants. This motion gave rise to a considerable debate, but it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and thirty-three. About the same time Mr. Ricardo moved, “That an humble address be presented to her majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions to her servants not to enter into any negociation with foreign powers which would make any contemplated alterations of the tariffs of other countries; and humbly expressing to her majesty the opinion of this house that the great object of relieving the commercial intercourse between this country and foreign nations from all injurious restrictions will be best promoted by regulating our own customs’ duties, as may be most suitable to the financial and commercial interests of this country, without reference to the amount of duties which foreign powers may think it expedient for their own interests to levy on British goods.” In advocating this motion, Mr. Ricardo dwelt on the inutility of all our recent commercial diplomacy; and contended that our objects might be as effectually attained by judicious legislation with respect to our imposts, as by intricate negociations with respect to exports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Sir J. Hanmer and Mr. Hume; but there not being forty members present, the house was counted out. Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion against the corn-laws on the 25th of June. He moved:—“That it appears by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this house that a large proportion of her majesty’s subjects are insufficiently provided for with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance. That any such restriction, having for its object to impede the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the act 5 & 6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith.” The debate on this motion occupied two evenings. Mr. Villiers supported it on the same ground which had been traversed by former argument on the same subject. By the facts and arguments which he adduced, he contended that he established these positions:—“That the supply of food had been deficient; that great inconvenience had resulted; and that the protective system had led to the cultivation of the land in a most slovenly manner.” Mr. Gladstone, on the part of government, announced his intention of calling upon the house to give a direct negative to the original resolutions. Lord John Russell said that the motion placed him in a difficult position: he could not vote for the total and immediate repeal of the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the existing corn-law. Sir Robert Peel, who spoke towards the close of the debate, said that the performance of the evening had been for the benefit of the company which usually performed at Covent Garden Theatre. Mr. Villiers, in closing the debate, said, that there was nothing for him to reply to, since no one had controverted his arguments. The speech which Sir Robert Peel had delivered would please the agriculturists; but he had made the same sort of speech for them in 1839, and had thrown them overboard afterwards, because the state of the season and the distress of the people had made it indispensable to give some relief to the country. He predicted that the same thing would happen again. The motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and twenty-four.