Now, what was the consequence of this measure? Not that the extreme forces produced by their operation a mean power, and went on amicably together, but that each in its turn prevailed with its own peculiar mischief; and that you had, within the extent of seven years, from 1815 downwards, every result that could deter men of observation and experience from ever resorting again to the principle, either of absolute prohibition, or of unlimited importa. tion; and, most undoubtedly, from any attempt to unite again the two together. Let us now inquire what was the operation of this law? It passed, as I have said, in 1815. I say nothing at present of price; I shall come to the consideration of that point presently. The law of 1815 imposed absolute prohibition up to the price of 80s. The harvest of 1816, it is well known, was one of the most unfavorable that this country ever experienced. It was known to be so as early as the beginning of August in that year. It was on the 15th of August, 1816, that that average of prices was to be prepared, which was to govern the question of exclusion on the one side, or importation on the other, for the next three months. On the 15th of August, the price of wheat was above the importing price of the law of 1815, but it had not been so for a sufficiently long period to give an average price above the importing price. The result was, therefore, that the ports remained closed during three starving months, from August to November, 1816, and did not open until the 15th of November of that year, after the price had been for about fifteen weeks above the importing price, and when all the northern ports of Europe were shut against supply. The ports opened in November, 1816, and remained open till the November of the following year, when they closed, the average price being less than 80s. by the fraction of 5d. The harvest of the year 1817 having been nearly or quite as bad as that of 1816, we had again a scarcity of supply; but the ports thus closed in November, 1817, of course did not open until February, 1818. Although the harvest of that year (1818) was most abundant, not only in this country, but in all the corn growing countries of Europe, yet by some accident, or by some contrivance, the ports were continued open on the 15th of November, 1818, by a fraction of 2d., and, by consequence, for the next three months, from November, 1818, to the quarterly average of February, 1819, an extraordinary influx of foreign corn continued to inundate the country, already inundated by a plenty of its own growth; prices were, in consequence, depressed to an extraordinary degree. In deed, the effect of these three months' importations produced, as I have said, by a fractional difference of 2d., was felt in the depreciation of the market for the three succeeding years. Thus, by the system of 1815, the ports were shut when the supply at home was deficient, and when the introduction of foreign corn was loudly called for, and opened when the home market was glutted, and when it was most expedient to shut out foreign supply; and the one operation and the other were produced by fractions of 5d. and of 2d., respectively. The consequence, then, of setting these two extreme principles in action-of setting them in conflict with each other, was this, -that each class of the community, in its turn, became a sufferer, and that each class applied to this House for relief. We all remember what the summer of 1817 was; and any hon. gentleman, who will take the trouble of turning back to the journals of this House, will see with what hundreds of petitions our table was loaded in the years, 1819, 1820, and 1821, when the agricultural interest was suffering from the extraordinary fluctuation of prices. The extreme difference of prices during the period for which this system was in operation, that is, from 1815 to 1822, was no less than this-on the one hand, 112s. per quarter, (this was in the year 1817)—on the other hand, 38s., (this was in the year 1822,) being a fluctuation of no less than 74s. per quarter. Mr. Canning's Statement of the Corn Law of the year 1822.* House of Commons, March, 1827.-Mr. CANNING: In the year 1822, the House listened to the prayer of the agricultural interest, and the law of 1815 was revised. Of that revised law, it may be sufficient to say, that it has never come into operation. It was, nevertheless, in one respect, materially different from the law of 1815. It called duty to its aid; it gave up, as a principle, unlimited prohibition, and contemplated a price at which foreign corn might be admitted, under a protecting duty. It admitted importation at 80s. first, and afterwards at 70s., at a duty, first of 17s., and afterwards, of 12s. But, to that revised law, was annexed or prefixed a clause, which stood as an out-work, as it were, to prevent the body of the law from being ever approached. This clause See note, p. 34. See the Act 3 Geo. 4, cap. 60-An Act to amend the Laws relating to the importation of Corn. retained the provision of the law of 1815, that importation should be prohibited up to the price of 80s.; the consequence of which was, and still is, that we live now as much under the operation of the original provision of exclusion up to 80s., as if the law of 1815 still continued unaltered. The result, then, of the alteration of 1822 has been perfectly null, for the revised law has never come into operation at all. Corn Laws-Conclusion of the Speech of Mr. Charles Grant (now Lord Glenelg), in moving the Resolutions of March, 1828.* House of Commons, March, 1828.-Mr. CHARLES GRANT said, such as these resolutions were, he presented them to the House, not as the best that could be framed, but as resolutions which, under all circumstances, were likely to pass into a law, and set this troubled question at rest. If they did pass into a law, they would, in his opinion, be productive of benefit to the country. They would remove an injurious law, protect the interests of agriculture, impress juster notions on the minds of men, and remove those extravagant expectations which prevailed, both among the opponents and the supporters of the present laws, on the subject of the corn trade. He had spoken of these resolutions as an introduction to something better; but, in one point of view, they were permanent. As far as the legislature was concerned they were permanent. They were permanent until the minds of men could be led to entertain juster notions upon this subject; and would be changed only as the notions which at present prevailed were altered for the better. They were offered to the landed interest as a resting place,—as firm and solid ground, on which time and experience might accumulate a richer soil. He begged the House to consider this measure as an arbitration or compromise between conflicting interests and opinions. He was free to confess, that he thought the resolutions imperfect, inasmuch as they fell short of the bill of Mr. Canning the bill of last year; but they had been brought as near to that measure as was consistent with the likelihood of their passing into a law. At the same time he must be allowed to say, that he would not have introduced them, if he had not thought that they would be productive of benefit to the country, and if he had not been convinced that if Mr. Canning had been in his situation, See note, p. 34. he would have acted as he had acted. Mr. Canning introduced his bill as a compromise, and not as the best measure that could be brought forward on the subject. Mr. Canning had expressly stated that his bill was a peace-offering, which was likely to be accepted by the two conflicting parties. He was quite sure that every hon. gentleman had still deeply impressed upon his mind every part of that memorable speech of Mr. Canning's, which was one of the finest specimens of that temperate and chastened eloquence of which Mr. Canning was as great a master as he was of everything that was delightful in imagination, and in all the most exquisite forms of oratory, which made him at once the ornament of the senate, the pride of those he led, and who were proud to serve under him, and the delight and admiration even of those to whom he had the misfortune to be opposed. He could not restrain himself from taking advantage of this opportunity of paying a tribute to the memory of that illustrious statesman- -a tribute in which he was sure he should be joined, not only by that House, but by every feeling and intelligent mind in the country. He had now merely to recommend these resolutions to the House and to implore the House not to treat them as the best which might have been produced, but as all that, under existing circumstances, could be done upon the subject. He then moved: "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that any sort of corn, grain, meal, or flour, which may now by law be imported into the United Kingdom, shall be admissible for home use upon payment of the following duties," &c. &c. &c. The Duke of Wellington states that if it were in his power to make Corn cheaper by lessening the protection which the landed gentry had always received, he would not do it.* House of Lords, March, 1828. - The Duke of WELLINGTON begged their lordships to look at Ireland, and to consider what must be the consequences of the want of encouragement to agriculture, when applied to that country, a country which last year supplied England with two million quarters of grain; the quantity of wheat imported being no less than four hundred thousand quarters. He begged their lordships to consider what must be the consequences of cutting off from that country the only source of industry the only manufacture, with one exception, which remained • See note, p. 34. to her. He was sure that no man who felt for that country would think it prudent to make such a sacrifice, in order to introduce corn into this country at a cheaper rate. But he spoke not only with reference to Ireland, but also to this country. He was ready to state that the gentlemen of this country had, by the expense of their capital, and the labour which they had employed on their estates, raised the agriculture of the country to its present prosperous condition; and nothing could be more unjust than to take from them that protection by which they had been enabled to bring cultivation to the state in which it now was, and to deprive them of those profits which were so justly their due, on account of the capital laid out by them. He would say that the merchant, the manufacturer, the poor, and the whole public, were interested in the maintenance of the independent affluence of the nobility and gentry of this country; that the government was interested in supporting their influence, on account of the assistance which had always been derived from them in every branch of internal government, and on account of the support which they had afforded to government under every circumstance. If it were in his power to make corn cheaper by lessening the protection which the landed gentry had always received, he would not do it, but would leave this country under an expense which it was for its interest to suffer, considering the condition of Ireland. Corn Laws-The system of entire prohibition.* House of Lords, March, 1828.-The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that, having expressed his opinion upon the system of importation at a low duty, he would now make a few remarks with respect to the other system-that of entire prohibition, which had been greatly complained of. The truth was, that such a system could not be carried strictly into execution, without exposing the country to the greatest evils; first of all, from want; next, from high prices; and also from a superabundance of corn, arising from the introduction of a greater quantity of wheat than was required, at a period when the scarcity had been relieved by an abundant harvest; and lastly, from the depression of prices, affecting not only the producers of corn in this country, but also the importers of foreign grain. Those evils could be relieved only by the illegal interference of the government, or by ministers coming down to induce Parliament to * See note, p. 34. |