The

Ministers, however, did not the discussion, but were taken
from the merits and details of the
whole question. Mr. Whitmore
allowed that the time at which he
submitted his motion was not alto-
gether unattended with inconve-
nience, and the possibility of loss;
but, not only the expediency, but
the absolute necessity of an imme-
diate alteration appeared to him
to be imperative. It was mis-
chievous, he said, to delay the de-
cision of the question a single mo-
ment, after government had applied
the principles of free trade to other
branches of industry; for these
principles could never be applied
with due effect, nor have practical
justice done to them, so long as
the present Corn-laws formed part
of our commercial policy.
British manufacturer could never
enter unprotected into a competi
tion with his continental rival,
while the chief means of his sub-
sistence were kept up at an arti-
ficial rate, far above their cost in
any other country of Europe. If
reciprocity of trade was to be es-
tablished at all, it was evident
that we ought to select those arti-
cles for its operation in which
foreign countries had the greatest
interests. Now, to all the coun-
tries from which grain could be
obtained, nothing was of nearly so
much importance as the exporta-
tion of corn; and yet our system of
Corn-laws had actually been dimin-
ishing in those countries, the pro-
duction of that in which alone
almost they could deal with us,
and repay us for our manufactures.
In consequence of our prohibitory
system, the price, in some parts of
Germany, was only 14s., and in
others, so low as 10s. per quarter;
and if the profits of foreign growers
were not such as to afford a fair
remunerating price, they would

reckon it prudent to introduce the
subject during the session, although
they frankly avowed that it was
one which must be grappled with.
The great object of terror in the
eyes of the agriculturists was,
the comparatively cheap rate at
which foreign grain could be
brought into the home market-
a rate so low, they said, that com-
petition with it, on their part,
would be impossible. Many vague
and uncertain statements were
current regarding these prices;
and accurate information was the
first thing to be desired. In the
preceding year, government had
sent abroad Mr. Jacob, a gentle-
man well acquainted with the corn
trade, to ascertain from surer data
than were yet known, the state
and productiveness of the corn-
growing countries round the Bal-
tic, and the average prices at which
grain might be expected to be ex-
ported from the Baltic ports. He
returned with a report, which was
printed for the use of parliament,
full of most detailed information.
The advocates of a repeal, anxious
in general to hurry on the discus-
sion, seized many opportunities, on
the occasion of presenting petitions,
of charging government with
keeping back unnecessarily the
settlement of a question, which,
they alleged, was agitating all
classes, and which must be met at
some time or another. But it was
not till the 18th of April, that the
subject was formally brought for
ward by Mr. Whitmore, who
moved "that the House do now
resolve itself into a committee to
consider the propriety of a re-
vision of the Corn-laws." The
grounds on which he supported
the motion had no relation to the
propriety of the period chosen for

naturally be driven, in their own defence, to grow flax, or such other articles as would repay them for their labour and the use of their capital. The fact was proved by the report of Mr. Jacob. That gentleman mentioned one case, in which a nobleman, who had formerly employed 26,000 acres in growing little else than grain, had now, in consequence of our prohibitory system, turned his land and his attention to the production of fine wool, and fed 15,000 Merino sheep. The exportation from Dantzig and Elbing, which, from 1801 to 1805, had been 549,365 quarters, amounted, in the years from 1821 to 1825, after our Corn-law of 1815 had been passed, to only 83,523. A similar falling-off had every where taken place. If home grain was at from 55s. to 60s. per quarter, we might never expect a greater annual importation of foreign grain than 400,000 quarters; with such an average price, the English agriculturists ought not only to be satisfied, but ought to regard themselves as the most enviable class of the community.

Sir Francis Burdett supported the motion, but for very different reasons from those of the mover. He did not think that the motion would produce any one of the effects which the mover expected from it; but yet he would support it, for he wished to get into the discussion, that it might be shewn, as he was certain it would be, that the land-owners, in supporting their own class and station, were advocating that which was essential to the general interests of the country. The opulence and prospertiy of the country was comprised in the fact, that, although not more than one third of our

whole population was occupied in agricultural pursuits, yet such was their skill, their knowledge, and experience, that they raised sufficient produce to keep the country generally in its state of wealth and opulence. Assuredly, there was no other country in the world, which had ever, with one third only of its strength employed in agricultural pursuits, sustained in such a condition, the rest of the people, including both the productive and unproductive classes. It was this very small proportion of hands, raising such an enormous amount of produce, that was the real secret of our wealth and power. In France, out of a population of 30,000,000, about four fifths, or 24,000,000, were engaged in agriculture.

Unquestionably, the reason why we had many wealthy manufac turers in our own country was, because the agricultural population, though in numbers so small, raised so large a supply of produce, which the manufacturers obtained, in effect, in exchange for their manufactures. It was this exchange of manufactures against agricultural produce, upon which all our domestic opulence was bottomed. It was ridiculous, therefore, to talk about one of these classes being poor, and the other rich, at one and the same time. The manufacturer could not be rich unless there was plenty of agricultural produce to be brought into the market for his abundance of manufactures; nor could the agriculturist be rich, unless there was that abundance of manufactures to be obtained for his excess of produce. The question now before the House did, in fact, regard the trade which had been always carried on in this country,

scientific classes useless, who were,

in the exchange of these commodities, corn and manufactures. in truth, the ornament and the Some persons were disposed to pride of society) were remune resolve all into the single cry of rated elsewhere; how much bet "Give us cheap bread." But ter, after all, they were paid in cheap bread" was, indeed, but a England than in any other part of convertible term. To say that the world. The price of bread corn was dear, was to say that was of little consequence; for manufactures were cheap. As though the master manufacturer long as the exchange of these arti- might like cheap bread, he also cles went on as it should do (and liked to have remunerating prices in that consisted the true interest for his manufactures, which, while of the country), one of them, ma- bread continued very cheap, he nufactures, or corn, must be dear, was not likely to obtain. In the and the other cheap. They could petitions presented to parliament not be at once both cheap and both from such places as Glasgow and dear, for there could be no such Paisley, the manufacturers comexchange, but what arose out of plained of low prices. It was diffithe excessive production of one cult to guess with what reason over the production of the other. they came before parliament comAs long as the manufacturer could plaining of the agricultural interafford to make cheap returns to est, and the price of bread; in the agricultural grower, or the which latter particular they were agricultural grower to the manu guilty of a very great and gross facturer, the productions of one of and vulgar error. For it was of them must be dear; but both must no consequence to the labouring be enriched by the exchange thus people, at what price the bread carried on between them. So, they consumed happened to be. too, of the merchant, in his rela- That must depend mainly on a tions with the manufacturer: his very different consideration, namereturns must be dependent on the ly, on the state of the currency. excess of manufacturing produce. Money prices must be regulated It was, therefore, a mistake to by the condition of the currency; suppose that the agriculturist, the but the real reward of labour, the manufacturer, or the merchant, proportionate reward, upon the could be flourishing, if they were produce of agriculture. A petinot all flourishing together. The tion from Blackburn, lately prefoundation of their joint prosperity sented, came from a very distressed was the agricultural interest of the class of the community. They country; for, without agriculture, also complained of the high price there could be neither manufac- of corn, for, except among the unturers nor merchants; nor, could fortunate landed interest, a comthe men of science, and the disciples plaint of the price of corn seemed of art, be paid. If it were doubted to be the order of the day with all that this was the case, let us cast classes. In this instance, however, our eyes abroad, and observe how it was only the expressed gravamen they, the unproductive classes, of the complaint; while the real (and he applied this distinctive evil deprecated by the petitioners epithet not invidiously, for he was was the introduction of the ". 'power far from calling those studious and looms." The more food you pro