Smith O Brien's attempt to reform Poor Law, March 1843

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).

HC Deb 23 March 1843 vol 67 cc1347-405

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_O%27Brien

He did not question the propriety of diminishing the number of assistant-commissioners, but he asked why Dr. Phelan was the individual selected for removal, without any prospect of future employment, and with- 1357 out any consideration for the circumstances under which he was appointed? At the present moment there were eleven assistant-commissioners in Ireland. Of these, six are English, five Irish. Of the five Irish assistant-commissioners, two are Roman Catholics. Dr. Phelan is one of the Roman Catholics, and there being at least three assistant-commissioners, junior, in the time of their appointment to him, why had he been selected for removal? Let it be remembered that Dr. Phelan was appointed on account of his ability and knowledge of the condition of the poor in Ireland. When appointed to the office of assistant-commissioner, he was in receipt of 200l. a-year, derived from three public institutions in the town of Clonmel, independently of a good private practice. No intimation appears to have been given to him that his tenure of office was to be of a more temporary character than that of his Colleagues. He and his family are now cast upon the world, without any consideration of his peculiar claims or past services. His constituents had directed him to ask on what grounds this had been done? Was it because Dr. Phelan was once a liberal in politics? Was it because he is a Roman Catholic? Was it because he is an Irishman?—He knew that the Government would state that it was not for any of these reasons; but he was bound to declare, that it was the opinion of a large portion of society in Ireland, that if he had been a Conservative—if he had been a Protestant—if he had been an Englishman, he would not have been so treated. The case of Doctor Phelan, who was much respected by the middle classes in Ireland, had excited general sympathy. Since his removed had been intimated, thirteen or fourteen boards of guardians had passed resolutions expressive of their esteem and approval of his conduct as an administrator of the poor-laws, as well as of their regret that he was about to be removed; and it was only an act of justice to the Conservative gentry of Ireland to say, that they had been as forward as any other class of society in this expression of sympathy. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would induce the commissioners to reconsider their determination, and not add to the other causes of their unpopularity the charge of having sacrificed a deserving individual to their caprice or injustice.


The next point with regard to which legislation was imperatively required, was that clause in the poor-law which throws the charge of the pauper's maintenance upon the electoral division in which he has been resident. Not only is a different rule with respect to the interpretation of the word "residence" adopted in the different boards of guardians, but even in the same board the. definition varies from week to week. Cases of the following kind constantly arise:—A person has lived twenty years in one electoral division, and a month in another, after which he presents himself for relief to the board of guardians—to which electoral division is he chargeable? From an opinion given by the late law officers of the Crown, it would appear that he is chargeable to the electoral division in which he has last taken up his residence with intent to remain there. It was unnecessary to point out to the House what an encouragement such an interpretation gives to the clearance of estates by landlords desirous to avert the charge arising from pauperism

It needed no argument to prove that those who are on the verge of destitution ought not to be subjected to any demand for poor rate; but it was a more difficult question to determine where the limit of exemption shall be fixed. The noble Lord must take care, lest in endeavouring to afford relief to the humbler classes in one way he, by the same measure, inflicts a greater evil upon them of a different kind. If the landlords be made liable for the rate upon small holdings, it was greatly to be feared that the tendency to consolidate holdings, and to get rid of the small occupiers—which 1361 tendency is already much too strong—would derive from such an enactment accumulated force. Upon the whole he (Mr. O'Brien) was inclined to think that it would be better to draw such a line of exemption as would relieve the labouring classes from liability to poor rate, and to make no demand upon the possessors of the property rated below an annual value of a certain amount, whether those possessors be landlords or occupiers. The tendency of such a measure would undoubtedly be to increase to a small amount the burden upon larger holdings, and to give a trifling advantage to those who leased their lands in small tenements; but in the present circumstances of Ireland, this tendency would have a very salutary effect in counteracting the disposition which now so generally prevails to consolidate the smaller holdings into large farms by the expulsion of the population. The exemption of smaller holdings from the rate will also take from the ranks of those who now resist the collection of the rate a great majority of the population, and throw their influence into the opposite direction in support of a law from which they may, in case of extreme necessity, obtain relief, but which in no case would impose upon them any burden

And, with regard to the expense, compare the relative cost of out-door and in-door relief. A poor widow, in Ireland, with five children, would consider herself well provided for, if she were secured an allowance of 3s. per week, with the chance of such little earnings as she might pick up at home. You compel her to go into the workhouse, and her family there costs at least 2s. 6d. per head per week, or 15s. for the whole family—so that, by the substitution of out-door for in-door relief, in cases of this kind, you would be enabled to assist, at the same expense, five times as many persons as the workhouse enables you now to relieve

It had long been a source of pride to him to have been an earnest advocate for a provision for the poor, when very few were found disposed to support such a proposal. It was true that the measures which he had suggested were very different from those which were ultimately adopted, but, although he had laboured, ineffectually, to introduce such alterations into the existing law as would have rendered it, in his opinion, acceptable to the country, he had been disposed to think that this imperfect measure was better than none at all. Even still, he 1368 rejoiced that the principle of a provision for the relief of the poor was implanted in the institutions of the country, because he felt assured that it never could be eradicated, and that it would work out its own amendment. It was, therefore, as a friend to the principle of a Poor-law, and not as an antagonist—that he asked for such modifications of the present law as would make it a blessing instead of a curse, to the people of Ireland.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Eliot,_3rd_Earl_of_St_Germans ( Chief Secretary 1841-45)

1372 Heads of expenditure, during the year 1842, taken on an average of the returns from thirty-three unions, the workhouses of which contained 14,741 inmates, average in each house 477—

Cost of maintenance and clothing of paupers, charged upon the electoral divisions	£2,033	8	6
Ditto, charged upon the union at large	327	8	8
Total	£2,360	17	2

It had been said that the salaries formed the main part of the Poor-law expenditure, so far from it he should show how fallacious that was—

Salaries of officers and servants, including masters, matron, &c	£353	3	5
Instalment of workhouse loans repaid	190	14	10
Other articles charged upon the establishment, furniture, &c.	952	2	7½
Total	£3,856	18	0½.

so that the whole average annual expenditure for each of the unions having been 3,856l. 18.s O½d. the salaries of officers and servants being 353l. was therefore about ten per cent., or 2s. in the pound, or l¼.in the shilling. The other charges being about 952l., about 25 per cent., or about 5s. in the pound, or about 3d. in the shilling; thus the total cost of these thirty-three unionsin 1842 amounted to 127,248l.; the net annual value of rateable property in these thirty-three unions was4,630,465l.; average in each union 140,317l.; there-fore the expenditure, namely, 3,856l., had averaged 23¼. per cent, on the valuation, or 7d. in the pound. There were 130 unions in Ireland; the workhouses when finished would contain 93,960 inmates, giving an average for each house of 723. At present, however, the average in each union was only 447 inmates supported at a cost of 3,856l., the 130 unions averaging the same number of inmates, would be 501,280l. assuming the total net value of rateable property in Ireland at 14,375,323/. the cost therefore of 130 unions, averaging 447 inmates, would average 3¾. per cent, on the entire valuation, or about nine-pence farthing in the pound. The annual cost of each union averaging 723 inmates (the highest average) would be 5,291l.; cost of 130 unions, at the same rate 687,830l.; assumed total net value of rateable property in Ireland, 14,375,323l.; therefore the 1373 costof 130 unions, averaging 723 inmates would be 4¾.per cent, on the entire valuation, about 1d. in the pound, pretty nearly the point at which it had been fixed by Mr. Nicholls, whose original estimate had not thus been wide of the mark.

The total number of paupers in 93 workhouses, in January, 1843, amounted to 35,112, consisting of the following classes:—

Men	7,134
Women	11,543
Boys under 15	7,881
Girls under 15	0,669
Infants under 2	1,885

The number of workhouses declared fit for reception was 110, and multiplying this number (110) by 723, the highest average number of paupers in each house and that would give the amount of workhouse accommodation now available at 79,530 paupers. The cost of maintenance and clothing per head, per week, including hospital diet, in the two Dublin unions, was 2l 2¾d. in Edenderry, 1s.10¼d. Castlederg, 1s. 8½d. Strabane, 1s. 11d.; Omagh, 1s. 9d. The annual cost of each pauper, at 2s.; per week, would be 5l. 4s. He held in his hand a small statement to show how much the poor-house had acted as a relief at periods of great pressure and distress. He was persuaded that these establishments had proved of the greatest benefit in Ireland, and he was sustained in this view of the case by a reference to the number accommodated in the months in which the pressure on the following population was the greatest. The noble Lord then read the following statement, showing the numbers in the workhouses increased during the season of pressure in July and August, and lessened as the distress subsided. The number in

May was	20,530
June	23,389
July	28,236
August	29,570
September	22,536
October	21,564

So that, without overflowing the work- 1374 houses, it was clear that they did afford an asylum to large numbers of people in the very exigence of distress. The workhouse test, then, had been applied with great advantage. Men would rather go into the house than starve; yet the Irish labourer would not go in when he could possibly gain a livelihood otherwise; and this was just the result contemplated and desired

It was not necessary, on the present occasion, to advert to the history of the passing of the measure in that House, but he would remind the hon. Gentleman, that to the principle of the measure no objection had been urged. Upon the second reading of the bill, in 1838, no division took place, and the majority which objected to the third reading of that measure, which afterwards became the law, was very inconsiderable. He thought that there was no man who looked back to the state of Ireland some years ago, who read the reports of the commissioners of poor inquiry, and read the works of travellers in Ireland—he thought there was no man who had listened to what had been said or read what had been written on the subject, but must be convinced that it was the duty of the House and of Parliament to interpose with some provision for the destitute poor of Ireland

He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in his proposition respecting out-door relief—he believed that the providing of out-door relief would be fatal in its consequences, and ultimately destroy the property of the country. The hon. Gentleman entirely mistook the object of the poor-law; it was not to prevent poverty, but to prevent the possibility of any individual dying of want, and the only test 1377 that it was practicable to apply was that which had been found to work well in that country (England), and which he maintained had been successfully applied in Ireland

He would not fatigue the House by reading extracts from the papers which had been laid before the House on that subject; but there was one which the hon. Gentleman had made it necessary for him to refer to, namely—the report of the commissioners of Poor-law inquiry in 1836. It would appear that they objected to the workhouse system in Ireland, and he was ready to concede that to the hon. Gentleman; but what did they say:— We have shown by our second report that the institutions existing in Ireland for the relief of the poor are houses of industry, infirmaries, fever hospitals, lunatic asylums, and dispensaries—and the establishment of these, except as to lunatic asylums, is not compulsory, but dependent upon public subscriptions, or the will of grand juries—that there are but nine houses of industry in the whole country—that while the provision made for the sick poor in some places is extensive, it is in other places wholly inadequate, and that there is no general provision made for the aged and impotent, and the destitute. Much is certainly given in Ireland in private charity, but it is not given in any organised system of relief, and the abundant alms which are bestowed in particular by the poorer classes unfortunately lead, as we have already observed, to encourage mendicancy with its attendant evils. Upon the best consideration which we have been enabled to give to the whole subject, we think that a legal provision should be made for rates levied as hereinafter mentioned for the relief and support of incurable as well as curable lunatics, of idiots, epileptic persons, cripples, deaf and dumb and blind poor, and all who labour under permanent bodily infirmities, such relief and support to be afforded within the walls of public institutions. He confessed he could not see the difference.

On the most moderate computation, the amount of spontaneous alms given in Ireland, chiefly by the smaller farmers and cottiers, was from 1,000,000l. to 2,000,000l. sterling annually; but, being given without system or without inquiry, the good and the bad, the really destitute and the pretenders to destitution, receive alike their maintenance out of the earnings of the industrious, to the great impoverishment, and to the great injury of the good morals, and good order of the kingdom. It appeared to him, therefore, that un; less there was something like a workhouse J test, out-door relief would be like the allowance system in England; and if the hon. Gentleman went into committee on the question, he would find that such difference of opinion existed on the subject, that it would be utterly impossible I that the committee could agree in recommending that system which he thought i best adapted to the people of Ireland. The object of the law was very distinctly) pointed out by that report of Mr. Nicholls, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. Mr. Nicholls said the Poor-law was not to prevent poverty, or to to provide work for the able-bodied, but simply to afford relief to the aged, impotent, and infirm poor. It was upon that understanding, and with a full knowledge of the objects and intentions of the Government, that the House had sanctioned the measure of 1838. It appeared to him, that the effect of a committee of inquiry would be to shake the confidence of the people of Ireland in the stability of the law, and that if a committee was appointed, the collection of any future rate would be almost impossible. It would be supposed, that the intention of Parliament as to the system of valuation had been misunderstood, and that there was a disposition on the part of Government to abandon its provisions. Further than that, he conceived that if the hon. Gentleman were to succeed in appointing that com- 1379 mittee of inquiry, it would necessarily appear futile and absurd on the part of the Government, to introduce at the same time a bill for the amendment of the law, while a committee was inquiring into and reporting upon its operations. Even should the hon. Gentleman succeed in obtaining his committee of inquiry, he doubted very much whether, with the difference of opinion that prevailed among the Irish Members of that House, as to the operation of the law, he would be able to come to any report upon the evidence before the end of the Session, and the only effect of the committee would be to add another blue book to the immense collection of evidence which crowded the library of that House. He thought it a more becoming course, that the Government, on its own responsibility, should bring in a measure which they thought best calculated to meet the circumstances of the case—which would remedy the existing defects, and when that measure was under the consideration of the House, it would then be for the hon. Gentleman either to suggest such modifications as it would be the duty of her Majesty's Government to adopt, or on their own parts to propose such alterations in the bill as might seem to them desirable. He hoped that when the measure of her Majesty's Government had been matured, that it would tend greatly to obviate the necessity of any such motion as the hon. Gentleman contemplated, which he should, therefore, most decidedly oppose, and which he now called upon the House to reject.

Corn Laws Feb 9th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Philip_Miles,_2nd_Baronet

This question is of too important a character—of too comprehensive details—to be treated on mere party grounds. It is a question in which every man in this country is interested, from the highest to the lowest—the merchant equally with the manufacturer, the landlord with the tenant, the operative with the 550 artisan. I trust that each one of them will give it his deepest consideration. I consider this question to be of far greater magnitude than the Reform Bill, because it involves a change of that policy which has been the ruling principle of this country from the earliest period of its history—under which it has attained to great eminence, and enjoyed a high degree of prosperity—a policy which all nations have long followed, and which all still continue to follow. Whether the country be prepared for this great change—whether the constituencies are ready to grant their approval—remains yet to be proved. But I cannot hesitate to say that, on a question involving such vital interests, the country ought at least to be consulted. For undoubtedly the majority of the Members of the present House of Commons were elected on protection principles

He has told us he has abandoned his principles, and consented to change the measures which he himself passed in 1842. If he consider that this is essential to the best interests of the country, I do not blame him. But I cannot consent to follow him, or to change my opinions so easily. The measure of 1842 has been admitted by all parties to have worked well so far, as a Corn Law. It has conduced to great steadiness of price, and it has answered the right hon. Baronet's expectations. Under that law, he aimed at a price of 56s. as a "fair price" for the farmer. I should like to ask him what price he considers a "fair price" for the farmer now? I should be glad to know at what price he aims under the proposed law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lascelles

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just concluded his address seemed to think that the country had attained the prosperity which had been its lot, entirely in consequence of the restrictions on trade which had been so long imposed upon it. He owned that the hon. Gentleman seemed to him to have read very incorrectly the history of the Empire. In his view, ever since the commencement of the time when restrictive policy began to be applied, they were visited with a series of fluctuations in the price of food which could not be otherwise than detrimental to the country. Previous to the passing of the Reform Bill the principles of free trade were not considered as belonging exclusively to any party. Mr. Huskisson was in a Tory Cabinet supported in his measures by the Whigs; and he must deny that upon the reconstruction of the Conservative party, after the Reform Bill, its commercial principles were those founded on a restrictive policy. He, for one, had never considered 564 such a policy as the test of the Conservative party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagu_Bertie,_6th_Earl_of_Abingdon (Lod Norreys)

said, having been a supporter of the right hon. Baronet, from 1830 to the present period; having given a steady support to all the measures of the present Government, agricultural and financial, and to the whole of their Irish policy; it was with no inconsiderable regret that he felt himself compelled, not only to oppose the measure now before them, but to state also that he could place no further confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's Administration.

But could he (Sir R. Peel) be surprised that the agriculturists had taken the line of no alteration in the Corn Laws: they were only following the advice given them formerly by the right hon. Baronet himself, who, in 1839, when the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was in office, advised them to make their stand on the principle of no change in the then law. On the faith of these declarations the Table of the House was loaded with petitions for no change in the then law. Was there, he would ask, less scarcity in 1839 than now? He could not have expected that the right hon. Baronet, who in 1839 had advised them to stand by the existing law; who in 1841 had so damaged the fixed duty, as they had been told by a noble Marquess in another place, that they were forced to abandon that system of protection; and who in 1842 professed to propose an adjustment of the question: he did not expect that the right hon. Baronet could have come to Parliament—he who had objected to an 8s. duty, which was to be permanent—to propose a 4s. duty, which was to end in total repeal, accompanied, too, by such a miserable compensation. What was the inference which he drew from all this? He would not accuse the right hon. Baronet of a want of political integrity: he did not believe such to be the case—he believed he had been actuated by no dishonest or dishonourable motives; but he would say, that, looking back to all these circumstances, he had shown himself to be devoid of that political foresight which entitled a public man to the confidence of his party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Baillie-Cochrane,_1st_Baron_Lamington

So in ancient Rome, the Senate debated whether to pronounce Adrian a god or a tyrant. He did not believe the right hon. Baronet either one or the other; but he did believe him anxious to do his best for the country in very difficult emergencies; and, inspired with this belief, he would recall to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House the occurrences of 1830, when they turned the right hon. Gentleman out of office by a coalition with the Opposition, and the consequences were eleven years of Whig rule. Sir (said the hon. Gentleman) I vote for this measure, because I have confidence in the financial policy of the right hon. Gentleman. 574 It is precisely the principle of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who votes against the measure, because he has no confidence in the right hon. Baronet. He is following at an humble, and at how far humbler distance, the opinion of Mr. Canning, who said, in 1802— A way with the cant of measures not men, of the idle supposition that it is the harness and not the horses which drag the chariot along. I vote for this measure, because I prefer legislation to agitation; moreover, because I am a sincere advocate for protection. Yes, Sir, for protection not to one class, to one interest, however important, but protection to all classes, to all interests, foreign and domestic—protection in hours of darkness and trouble, which, I pray God, may be far from us, but which, we cannot conceal from ourselves, may depend on the life of one man in France, or on party cry in America—protection when another northern confederacy may threaten our shores, and hostile fleets threaten our colonial empire—the protection of a strong and vigorous Administration; but, above all, I vote for this measure because, in the beautiful language of the prayer which we hear each day, I would set aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, and lend my humble but most sincere endeavours to any settlement which those whose peculiar province it is to rule the destinies of this great country may judge conducive to the comfort and welfare of the poorer but not less loyal classes of my fellow subjects.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Deedes_senior

  and the very argument which the right hon. Baronet had used on the first night of the Session with reference to the supply of potatoes to be obtained from abroad, served to strengthen the conclusion at which he (Mr. Deedes) had arrived. For he had said that in looking round to see whence could be had a supply of potatoes, to replace the extensive failure 579 in Ireland, he had found that Belgium, Sweden, and other potato-growing countries had placed restrictions upon the exportation of the article, and would not allow it to come in aid of our failing crops. Could it be doubted that, under similar circumstances, foreign nations would, for their own sakes, adopt a similar course? He required no further argument than that to induce him to withhold his support from the right hon. Baronet. He was aware the right hon. Baronet had said he did not believe there would be a material diminution in the price of corn. But he asked if the gentlemen of the League held that doctrine; did they intend that there should be no reduction in the price of corn?

Entertaining these views generally—dreading, above all things, to see this country at any time dependent on foreign nations during the scarcity of so important an article as the bread by which we lived—fearing, also, that if we had to purchase corn from foreign countries, the specie of this country must go out to pay for it, and, consequently, there would be a reduction of that specie in the Bank of England which enabled other banks to have a larger issue—and dreading the consequences of such a paper restriction on the country—looking at this, and bearing in mind the language of the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues in 1842 on this question, he could not allow himself, against his own convictions, to follow him and vote for the measure before the House. He should sit down with a fervent prayer that it would please Divine Providence, who had hitherto exalted this nation, still to guide its destiny so as to make it an example of good government at home, and fairness, and moderation, 581 and justice in its dealings with foreign nations.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walsh,_1st_Baron_Ormathwaite

It appeared by a Return which had been made on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, in 1843, that the amount assessed for Income Tax was 45,750,000l. as the rental of Great Britain alone, exclusive of the rental of Ireland, from which no return was made. He was unable to state precisely what was the rental of Ireland; but he could not be in error in assuming that it must be from 15,000,000l. to 20,000,000l. Taking this, then, as a narrow question of rent, and admitting that the preservation of rent was the motive which solely actuated the landed proprietors, it must also be admitted that a question involving no less a sum than 60,000,000l. a year—a large integral portion of the wealth of the nation—more than double the amount of the interest of the national debt, exceeding the amount of the whole export trade of the country—demanded respect and consideration as deeply affecting the prosperity of the nation? How was that wealth distributed? When hon. Gentlemen used the words "landlords" and "rent" in their addresses throughout the country, nothing else was suggested to the minds of their hearers but the owners of great territorial possessions, such as the Duke of Northumberland, or the Duke of Devonshire, or the Duke of Bedford—noblemen who had half a county under their sway—or some of the great landed gentry, who by the antiquity of their families, and the extent of their estates, might be regarded as the rivals of the highest and greatest of the Peerage. Those who presented such portraitures to the public, entertained most mistaken views on this question. There were whole counties in England in which there was scarcely one large mass of property collected together worthy to be called an estate, but in which, 583 on the contrary, the property was subdivided in every way—in which property was owned by every class of individuals—in great part by yeomen, who had inherited the land from their forefathers, owned small plots of land, and cultivated the farms on which they lived. Another most numerous class of landlords were small retired tradesmen, who, with that love of rural life which was almost a natural instinct with Englishmen, had invested all the savings of a life of industry and successful enterprise in land. Mr. M'Culloch, an authority of great weight, estimated the number of landed proprietors in this country at 200,000. There were then 200,000 landed proprietors, without considering their families or dependents, who were directly interested in the question of rent. He said, that even on that ground this question was not to be considered as one concerning the interest of a small and narrow class. If it were a class interest it involved the fortunes of a great portion of the population of this country. But when they considered the pecuniary amount involved in it—its collateral bearings, and wide ramifications—the property that by various engagements, by marriage and other settlements, was bound up in it—it was a question not to be separated from that of the national prosperity itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._B._Hope

This measure of 1846 formed a just crowning point to that strange heterogenous mass of legislation, the Maynooth grant, the Irish Colleges, and those other measures which constituted the political life of the Parliament of 1841. But the right hon. Baronet might say there was no other course open to him. He thought, however, that the right hon. Baronet might have said, as upon former occasions, that there were three courses open to him. The right hon. Baronet might have treated the question as he had done; he might have dissolved Parliament; or, better than either, he might have come boldly forward at the time the noble Member for London had, 596 with great gallantry, advocated free trade. If the right hon. Baronet had then come forward, and said to the noble Lord, "For a long time I have supported protection, you have supported free trade. I am satisfied now, that all my life I was wrong; therefore, to you who are right, I give up the Government of the country, and tender you my warmest and hearty support." That would have been honest, and whatever their private views might have been, they could not have helped praising such a course as heroic and magnanimous on the part of the right hon. Baronet, and he would have won golden opinions for himself even on that (the Ministerial) side. But still he would have done better if he had let hon. Gentleman opposite, as he had a right to do, bring forward those measures, and reap the honour and credit of their own policy. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had a right to demand that those measures of legislation, which for many years they had toiled after and spent their lives in procuring, should be passed by them; that they should have the honour and credit of carrying them. That would have been but common justice to them. But another course had been adopted by the Conservative protectionist Government of 1841. A free trade was proposed by them, and was to be carried through the House by the cry of cheap bread. His vote therefore would be given as a protest against a course of policy which could add no lustre to the very best system of abstract legislation.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Ryder,_2nd_Earl_of_Harrowby (Viscount Sandon)

Was this the new reading of political economy? Was it the object of the clamourer upon the Corn Laws to have a smaller rather than a bigger loaf? He could not, therefore, pretend conversion; he could not close his eyes to the fact, that in removing all protection from domestic agriculture, they were about to make a most hazardous, an almost unprecedented experiment. Let them look to commercial Holland, to monarchical France and Belgium, with their mixed interests, or to republican America, they would find no country which had yet been rash enough to leave her agriculture exposed to the unmitigated effect of occasional glut from foreign import, from which it especially suffered, and from which it had so little power to protect itself. He was now thinking of the case of the tenant-farmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_John_Russell

 I will not attempt to underrate the importance of this question. Hon. Gentlemen whom we have heard speak on the opposite side of the House, and who object to the propositions made to us by Her Majesty's Ministers, seem to consider that they have said what is quite conclusive when they say that for centuries a system of protection has been the system of legislation adopted in our public policy. I am not at all terrified, Sir, by that annunciation. We know that for centuries the system of religious disabilities was the system of legislation adopted in this country; we know that for centuries the want of security for the liberty of the person was the legislative system adopted in this country; but happily we have lived to acknowledge the great benefits which have flowed from the destruction of those systems; and I hope that we are now at the commencement of the destruction of another system which has been most injurious to the country. We shall hereafter all feel proud that we have participated in laying the foundation for a new and a better order of things.

to read a pamphlet, in answer to another pamphlet, published by Messrs. Malton and Trimmer, written by Mr. Halesworth, who says that every quarter of corn is raised 17s. in price by the protection afforded by the Corn Laws. If this be so—though I believe it in fact to be a great exaggeration—if corn and bread be thus raised in price, an enormous amount of protection is given to agriculture. Suppose the fact were so, if 20,000,000 quarters were raised 17s. a quarter, a tax of no less than 17,000,000l. a year would be paid by the people of this country for this protection to agriculture. I believe that this statement is much exaggerated, but still the great principle is correct: it does raise the price; and while we give protection, as it is afforded by the present law, we give, what I will not call an advantage, but an apparent advantage, to a particular class, which is injurious to the whole community.

When Mr. Huskisson brought forward his plan, many of those who sat on his own side of the House were opposed to him; many of us who sat opposite to him gave him our support. Plans of moderating duties, and introducing a tendency towards free trade, are not properly Whig plans; they are not exclusively Tory plans. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, when Home Secretary, as I have always understood, and as he himself has stated, acted most cordially with Mr. Huskisson in the promotion of those measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Inglis

The famine, or apprehension of it, was, however, limited to an insufficient supply of one article of food, and which article of food could, if not supplied from other parts of the world, be very well dispensed with by the substitution of another and higher description of product. He remembered some years ago reading a very able article in a paper called the Scotsman, respecting the evil of bringing up the people of any country to live on the cheapest possible food, because in that case, the writer argued, the population had nothing on which they could fall back. He admitted that having brought up the people of Ireland—4,000,000 of them at least—on potatoes, they could not supply them with anything cheaper as the fruit of their own labour. But he thought that such a crisis—a great crisis, as the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government called it—might be met by extraordinary energy and exertion of the supreme Government. It was not by the introduction of potatoes they could be relieved; because, as the right hon. Baronet himself said, in the remarkable speech which he delivered to the 615 House, all the countries which produced potatoes had prohibited their exportation. In Sweden, Belgium, and Holland, the distress was so great, that no potatoes could be obtained from those places. But did that apply to the inferior kinds of grain, or did it apply to the superior kinds? He thought the right hon. Baronet had told them that both Turkey and Egypt had refused to permit any exportation of the higher kinds of grain from those countries. But the Irish people might have the supply they wanted by the importation of the inferior kinds of grain, and which would yet be superior to their ordinary food.

For his part, he could only deplore the course that had been taken by the Government, and endeavour to give it all the resistance in his power. He asked himself when, and on what ground, and by whom, was the present question brought forward? The answer was—in a time of profound peace and universal prosperity. Look to Ireland—Ireland not as in 1798 619 with a secret organization of 300,000 armed men ready for rebellion: not as three years since, when overrun with monster-meetings. Look at England—in a state of prosperity unexampled; and advancing in this prosperity under the very system of protection which was repudiated by the authors of the present measure. There never was a year in which every branch of industry flourished so vigorously as in 1845. The old maxim Quieta non movere might be paralleled in English, "Let well alone:"—why should we take physic and die? Then again, on what ground was this great change enforced? Why, that in one division of the Empire, there had been a great failure in one main article of food, the potato crop of Ireland. But, in the first place, all men admitted that other crops had been abundant there and here; and, as to this particular crop, in a document laid on the Table of the House, which he now took up in his hand, it appeared, that there was in the district to which the return applied, a large increase in the crop of last year over the preceding year. In the whole of the district, consisting of twelve parishes, the produce in each parish was, as contrasted with that of the preceding year, as follows: In one parish, 16 bushels this year instead of 10; in another, 18 instead of 10; 14 instead of 10; 14 instead of 10; 18 instead of 10; 18 instead of 10; 14 instead of 10; 14 instead of 10; and 14 instead of 10. In every instance, in short, the produce had been much greater this year than last. A private account which he had received, confirmed the conclusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_FitzMaurice_(MP)

that under the tree of British protection every species of industry had flourished in this country, and the result of free trade would be, that it would throw a large mass of land out of cultivation in exact proportion 620 to the quantity of foreign corn imported from abroad, which was grown there at a cheaper rate than in this country. Taking the case of Poland, for instance, he had the authority of a person who had resided there for twelve years, for saying that wheat grown in Poland might be landed in the London market under 30s. a quarter. They were told that America would afford a great market for British manufacturers, and he sincerely hoped it would prove so; but suppose America did not choose to take British manufactures in exchange for corn, but should insist on having gold, in what a condition would this country be then placed! He would ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether he did not know that nearly three-fourths of the whole shipping which came into the port of London laden with corn during the last quarter, returned in ballast, or, in other words, they returned with gold for their corn?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Herbert,_1st_Baron_Herbert_of_Lea

I wish I could agree with my hon. Friend that there was not in Ireland any such cause for interference—that there was no cause for anxiety, none to justify any extreme step taken by the Government, none to justify Ministers in proposing to change the laws which regulate the importation of food. The hon. Gentleman tells us—and he selects one electoral district in illustration—that there was a larger crop than the average sowed in Ireland; and therefore the loss was not so great as the increase which the unusual fertility of the fields produced. [A VOICE: Those are potatoes.] Yes, but potatoes are a prime article of food in Ireland; and it is impossible to disconnect the failure of the potato crop from this question of food. It is not necessary for me to expatiate, upon the misery of a population depending upon that kind of food exclusively. We have this year a signal instance of the state to which a population may be reduced when it depends for subsistence on food which is not susceptible of keeping from one harvest to another; but is it the case, that there is this year an unusual fertility in Ireland? The Commissioners, referring to the opinion that upon the whole the potato crop this year was a very large one, said— We regret to add, that we have been unable to obtain any proof of this; on the contrary, we have seen that the crop was small, and we have it in evidence that it is below the average; but we have also seen it to be heavy, and we therefore conclude that it may, perhaps, be an average crop. From first to last I must say, that the reports which the Government has received from the constabulary and from the stipendiary magistrates were most creditable to their judgment in this respect; that as they never gave in to the panic at first, they never gave in to the fool's paradise at last. They never gave in to the statement that there were no sound potatoes left. They never misinformed the Government in that respect, and they never in that reaction of the public mind—to which perhaps they are more subject in Ireland than in other parts of the Empire—fled to the other extreme and told the Government that no danger was to be apprehended. So far as the failure of the crop in Ireland is concerned, I wish I stood here in the position of being obliged to state that the reports by which we have been guided are fallacious, our judgment erroneous, our precautions unnecessary. On the contrary, I fear that any inquiry you may institute will give a fearful and 623 melancholy corroboration of the facts on which we have acted, and that our judgment will be proved true in a manner and to an extent which none, I am sure, will regret more sincerely than the very Gentlemen who now deny the fact. But the evil exists here also. In England and in Scotland, potatoes are a staple article of food. In the west of England, their use has increased almost as much as in Ireland. No man has put more strongly than the noble Lord the Member for London, the paradoxes of a scarcity of food with cheapness, owing to the inferiority of what is produced. Potatoes, in the face of scarcity, are sold cheap, the holders fearing their loss through decay. So the averages of corn were depressed last season by the inferior quality of the grain. I do not stand on a point of consistency when I frankly avow that I think the law of 1842 has failed; that the first time it was tested by adverse circumstances it failed, and signally failed. We have dear bread and low averages—dear bread and a high duty. We have bread as dear as in 1839 under the old law, the duty higher than under the old law. The prices of wheat in November ranged as high as in 1839; but the mass of the wheat being of inferior quality, sold at the lower prices, and depressed the averages. Bad wheat does not make bad bread, but less bread; you must buy more wheat to get farina to make the same quantity of bread. But we had bread at 9½d. and 10d.; a fixed duty of 14s. For short harvests the law of 1842 would have worked; for it was a mitigation of the principle of protection. Hon. Gentlemen forget that the whole object of the Corn Law enacted in 1815 was to effect the transition from the high prices of war to the low prices of peace. How did every statesman who ever touched the question deal with it? Was it to increase protection? No; but to diminish it; to carry out the principle in the same spirit in which it originated. Seeing the existing state of matters, seeing the law had failed of its purpose—that food was deficient in quantity and inferior in quality — that the deficiency was common to the whole of Europe—that in consequence of that deficiency other countries had opened their ports for importations of grain—while Turkey, Egypt, and others, had closed theirs against exportations of grain—that other countries on which we had depended for supplies had become competitors against 624 us for the purchase of grain; under these circumstances I thought, with others in Her Majesty's Government, that it was necessary to take steps for meeting the difficulties under which the country was labouring. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Somerset that he was not one who was adverse to opening the ports—that he was not prepared to oppose such a measure if its necessity were absolutely shown. I regret, even now, that the course we then contemplated was not adopted. I think that in cases of public emergency, promptness and vigour ought to be exercised. I thought, under these circumstances, that if the Government at once took upon itself the responsibility of these measures, the battle would have been half won. I knew this, moreover, and say what Gentlemen may in this House, they will not persuade me to the contrary—that the gentry and the agriculturists of England were not men to set up their pecuniary or other interests in opposition to the public advantage

  

      

    

Corn Laws 29th Jan - Feb 8th

29 January 1846

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gordon-Lennox,_5th_Duke_of_Richmond

presented a petition, signed, he said, by a large number of gentlemen, farmers, and labourers of West Harlsey, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the Corn Laws, and complaining of the unconstitutional course of the Anti-Corn-Law League. The noble Duke, in continuation, said, he had had opportunities of seeing a very large number of the gentry and tenantry of the country since the opening of the "comprehensive scheme," as it was called, of the Ministers had been made known in another place, and he could only say that that "comprehensive scheme" had been repudiated by every one of these individuals who came from every part of England. They viewed the proposed measure with strong indignation, and, one and all, they were prepared to stand to the last to maintain protection, not only for themselves, but protection for the domestic industry of the country. They considered they had been grossly ill-treated and deceived: for the men who by their support were sent into the House of Commons upon the faith that they would maintain the protective system, were — at least many of them—now wavering and doubting; and they thought that the men who had made such pledges were bound to resign their seats in order to see whether they would again be returned. He entirely 338 concurred in these opinions. He thought the abandonment of the system of protection would have an injurious, indeed a ruinous, effect upon the great interests of the country; and the manner in which the subject had been agitated by the Anti-Corn-Law League ought to be one reason, even if there were no others, that the Ministerial measure should be thrown out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kinnaird,_9th_Lord_Kinnaird

He (Lord Kinnaird) did not know whether it was according to the rules of the House, but as the noble Duke had been permitted to allude to the "comprehensive scheme" submitted to the other House by Her Majesty's Government, he probably might be allowed to add a few observations. He was not going to enter into the details of that scheme. He was happy to say that, although he wished the repeal of the Corn Laws had been more immediate than was proposed, that scheme was fully satisfactory. The protectionist party called upon the Government to appeal to the country. It was, indeed, a strange doctrine, that the Government should not first try the House of Commons. If the Government were beat in the House of Commons, they would, of necessity, appeal to the country; but to appeal at once, without taking the sense of the existing Parliament, would be a practical adoption of the Chartist doctrine of annual Parliaments. As far as he had had opportunity for judging, he believed there would be a majority, both of the people and the Parliament, for the Government measure; but what would be the consequences of postponement? The noble Duke might approve of it; but how long would the question be allowed to exist? Did the noble Duke consider it was possible that the country would very long submit to delay? The consequence of delay, he (Lord Kinnaird) said, would be a sweeping reform in the Parliamentary constitution. The people, disappointed in their desires, would not submit to the continuance of protection after having had the abolition of it within their grasp; and if it were denied, they would not submit to the present constitution of the House of Commons, with regard to the number of nomination boroughs in the hands of the protectionists.  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Baring,_1st_Baron_Ashburton

   It was completely undeniable that the principle of free trade was in accordance with common sense; but the question which they had to consider was, how that principle could be established in a country having such complicated interests—placed in such an artificial position with regard to other countries of Europe, which were placed in positions equally artificial, and which had interests that were fighting against this country in every possible way—this country having, too, a debt of eight hundred millions upon its shoulders. How, he asked, was it possible that the principle of free trade, even admitting—which he did—that it was the principle of common sense, could be applied in such a case? He not only admitted that perfect free trade, if practicable, would be in accordance with common sense, but that it would be consistent with the best interests of all countries. The noble Lord advocated entire free trade; but how, he would to ask the noble Lord, would he be prepared go into a Committee of Ways and Means, to pay the interest of the national debt, 348 and to maintain the credit of the country, without meeting with all the difficulties and chances of a loss of revenue, which his principle would oblige him to risk.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Grey,_3rd_Earl_Grey

It would have been better, he thought, if the measure, which substantially amounted to the abolition of the protection on corn, had, that object being contemplated, proposed the abolition at once. For his part, he regarded the modified sliding scale, which was to be continued for three years, as neither more nor less than a mockery of protection. It was clearly considered so by those noble Lords who advocated the principle of protection, and being so regarded, he (Earl Grey) was totally at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be recommended to them. He confessed that as a landowner, this was the only part of the measure of which he was afraid. He was not afraid of a fair and free competition, for he was perfectly persuaded that the agriculturists of this country were no less able than the manufacturers to compete fairly in the market with their foreign rivals; but he was seriously afraid, when a change in the policy of the country was about to take place, and the avowal was made that protection could not be maintained, that the interposition of an interval of delay before that suggested change was carried into effect would be most injurious, by prolonging those evils with which a state of transition in commercial affairs was invariably attended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Spring_Rice,_1st_Baron_Monteagle_of_Brandon

He must protest, in passing, against the doctrine of his noble Friend, that tithes should be considered a burden upon land, for which the landed interest was entitled to protection. He could on this subject rely on the authority of Mr. Ricardo, who clearly showed that when tithes became a rent charge, they ought not to be considered as a peculiar burden on land, augmenting the cost of production. Tithes were only a different mode of apportioning the produce. They never had belonged to the landlord, and therefore neither the landlord nor the occupier of the land had any claim to protection in that respect. He could not conceive how tithes could be brought forward by his noble Friend as an argument against free trade.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Wodehouse_(1784%E2%80%931855)

       The letter for which he would first call would be the copy of a despatch from Mr. H. U. Addington to Mr. Canning, dated at Washington, on the 30th of May, 1824, and detailing in the fullest manner the conflict of feelings displayed by every description of party in the United States. Nothing could be more comprehensive than that letter, and there was the remarkable fact that neither Mr. Addington nor Sir Charles Vaughan made any particular allusion to corn as being mentioned in it, but spoke of the articles alluded to as Swedish iron, hammered iron, and bar iron, corn having been in fact hardly ever mentioned. The concluding paragraph of Mr. Addington's letter was as follows:— I have only to add, that had no restrictions on the importations of foreign grain existed in Europe generally, and especially in Great Britain, I have little doubt that the Tariff would never have passed through either house of Congress, since the great agricultural States, and Pennsylvania especially, the main mover of the question, would have been indifferent, if not opposed to its enactment. Such was the version of Mr. Addington—now take the construction of Mr. Chapman, "That our Corn Laws were an apology for the hostile tariffs of other nations required no proof." ["Hear!"] Hon. Members cried "hear."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowring

While residing at Cairo, with a commercial commission from the British Government, strong representations were made to him (Dr. Bowring) on the subject of the Pacha's decrees, which ordered that corn, beans, and bread, should be sold only on such and such terms. But neither farmers nor bakers would obey—the bazaars were left without grain—the shops had no supplies of bread—the more rigid and severe the ordinances for lowering prices, the higher those prices mounted. Famine menaced the city—the people were on the verge of insurrection. In such a state he had undertaken to be the organ of the public voice to the ruler of Egypt, and to represent to him, that however benevolent his intentions, his decrees were fearfully augmenting the alarm and the misery, and would infallibly lead to extensive and enduring distress. He told the Pacha that the causes which led to the rise and fall of prices were, for the most part, beyond the control even of the mightiest monarch, and that the only way to secure ample supplies at moderate rates was to remove all impediments to the ingress and egress of food; that prices would best regulate themselves; and that by allowing them to mount upwards was the certain means of bringing corn to the market. And it was his good fortune to persuade the Pacha of the correctness of these opinions, and to induce him to withdraw the decrees which interfered with the freedom of 448 the trade in grain. The consequences were what he had ventured to foretell. Abundance succeeded to dearth—an ample supply poured into the markets, and the Pacha acknowledged that the advice proffered to him had been sound and wise.

We were giving a noble example—and when a country like this became a teacher of commercial wisdom, she was sure to find many and apt learners.         

Corn Laws Debate -Jan 27th

 

HC Deb 27 January 1846 vol 83 cc237-329

Robert Peel -

You cannot conduce more to the improvement of inferior soils than by encouraging the feeding and fattening of cattle, and thus permitting the application of the manure to the increased fertility of the soil. I propose, therefore, that one article of grain, which, I believe, may be applied to the fattening of cattle, shall hereafter be imported duty free; it is an article, however, of immense importance—I mean maize or Indian corn. I propose that the duty on maize shall hereafter and immediately be merely nominal. Now, Sir, I do not consider that by removing the duty on maize—I do not consider that I am depriving agriculture of any protection. Maize is generally used, I believe, in the United States; it is certainly used principally as human food, but its utility as human food is very much disregarded in this country. There are parts of the Continent in which it is made into most excellent food, and there are parts of the United States in which it is preferred to some of the food we use in this country; but I do believe that, by the free importation of maize, so far from doing a disservice to agriculture, by promoting the feeding of cattle an advantage rather than a disadvantage will be gained. -

We attempted to meet some of the objections which have been made to the varying price of wheat; at the same time to fix any duty which would be considered available would not answer the purpose which I am desirous to attain, of making an immediate reduction, on account of temporary exigencies, in the present amount of price. -

WHEAT.
Whenever the average price of Wheat, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be for every quarter
Under 48s. the duty shall be for every quarter	10s.	0d.
48s.	49s.	the duty shall be for every quarter	9	0
49s.	50s.	the duty shall be for every quarter	8	0
50s.	51s.	the duty shall be for every quarter	7	0
51s.	52s.	the duty shall be for every quarter	6	0
52s.	53s.	the duty shall be for every quarter	5	0
53s.and upwards	the duty shall be for every quarter	4	0

I propose, that whenever the price of grain made up and published in the manner required by law shall exceed 53s., there shall then be an invariable duty of 4s. per quarter. That is to say, that there shall be no temptation to hold grain when the price shall exceed 54s., for the purpose of securing the shilling of extra duty. The enactments which we shall propose with respect to all other descriptions of grain will precisely follow the scale which we have adopted with regard to wheat. It would, however, perhaps be more convenient for the House, considering the time I have already occupied, that I should rather refer them to the details which will be printed to-morrow morning, than go through the whole now as regards oats and barley. It may be sufficient for the present purpose to state that the same general rule will be adopted in all. There would now, therefore, be levied on wheat, instead of a duty of 16s., one of 4s.; and every other grain at the present prices taken out of bond for consumption in the home market, would be subject to a merely nominal duty. -

Henry Liddell -

Surely, in the same manner it might now be argued—at a time when the right hon. Baronet took credit for the success of his measures—that other causes might also have operated in producing that prosperous condition of the country in which he was sure they all rejoiced, and which he, for his own part, never remembered to have seen equalled; for he never recollected a period when wages were so high and prices so reasonable, or when the labourer enjoyed to such an extent the necessaries, he might almost say the luxuries of life, 293 as he did at the present time. Now, if the right hon. Baronet could show, in connexion with his own arguments, and in corroboration of the views he had taken of these matters, that the price of grain at this time showed any indication of a supervening scarcity, it would have certainly been a strong argument in favour of the opinions which he had brought forward.

He said that, taking the average of seven years previously, it was found that the price of wheat had been 56s. 8d. per quarter; that the average price of ten previous years had been 56s. 11d.; but that in the latter calculation was included that of the last three years in which corn had been higher in price than it was desirable to see it. And the right hon. Baronet concluded that, on the whole, the price ought to oscillate between 54s. and 58s.; that an average price between those two figures would be a reasonable average. Now, he (Mr. Liddell) had looked that day at the last Gazette, and he found that, for six weeks ending with the 15th day of January, 1846, the average price amounted to the precise sum of 56s. 8d.; and when the price of wheat was at this fair, reasonable, and just average—were they to be frightened by an apprehension of scarcity, from the maintenance of a system of protection under which all the best interests of the country continued to thrive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rous,_1st_Earl_of_Stradbroke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rous

Henry Rous -

 When the potato crop failed in Ireland, and in parts of England when the destruction of the wheat crop was threatened, he was satisfied that something was necessary to be done for the salvation of the country. If the population of this country were increasing beyond calculation, while the area of land was limited, would it not be impossible to provide them with a necessary quantity of food if protection were not removed? He had heard something about 299 2,000,000 of acres being thrown out of cultivation in the event of free trade. ["More than that."] He had no fear of any such thing taking place, for he was well assured, and all the country Gentlemen must be aware, that so long as there was a labourer in the parish—and labourers there always would be—the land would never be left uncultivated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chetwynd-Talbot,_2nd_Earl_Talbot (father)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Chetwynd-Talbot,_18th_Earl_of_Shrewsbury

(aka) Viscont Ingestre -

The farmers were beginning to get some remuneration for their produce; the consumers had abundance of food, and labourers abundance of employment. Under such circumstances he could not see the necessity for proposing this great organic change.

He could not conceal from himself that with great energy and talent the right hon. Gentleman had governed this country; and he must ever gratefully remember the exertions which the right hon. Gentleman had used to stem the tide of revolution during the Reform agitation of 1831. The right hon. Baronet, in his speech the other evening, said he could not consent to be the pilot of the State vessel, unless perfectly unfettered. He applauded him for that. He (Lord Ingestre) had joined the ship's company, on the understanding that he was to follow that pilot; but believing that the landmarks and beacons had been removed, and that the ship was going in a false 303 course, he hoped he should not be accused of mutiny and sedition, if, having signed the articles for a different purpose, he declined being instrumental in weighing the anchor or hoisting the topsails to let the ship go down the stream of destruction. He could not avoid entering, at this early period, his protest against any diminution of protection to native industry. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_(MP) -

    At no former period since he had taken office were there higher wages for labour—was corn so steady in price, and so accessible to the poor. At no former period was there a greater degree of contentment; and this state of things was urged as a reason, not for continuing the course we had followed hitherto, but for abandoning that course. If the circumstances which produced the change in the mind of the right hon. Baronet were unable to convince his Colleagues, he (Mr. Scott) must question whether they would produce any change in the minds of hon. Members of that House. Abundance of corn grown in our own soil had, more than anything else, contributed to the welfare of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_John_Tyrell,_2nd_Baronet -

    He regretted the prolongation of the discussion, as it could not end in the House's coming to any conclusion upon that occasion; but he must say, as the right hon. Baronet had complained that his antagonists had not confined themselves to argument, but had employed vituperation, he felt, for one, as he imagined persons would have felt in the Peninsular war, if the Duke of Wellington and the greater part of his staff had gone over to Marshal Soult. Such was the feeling which he (Sir J. Tyrell), as an agricultural Member, felt at the situation he was placed in.

Looking, then, at all the proceedings of Ministers, he saw no reason why he should continue 309 to support what very fairly might be called the potato-Peel Government. When it was said that the great interests of the country were to be supported, he could not held regretting that it should have been thought necessary to introduce so important a speech as they had heard, with so much pompous preparation; and he confessed that he saw no reason for waiting a fortnight before he delivered his opinion with regard to the propositions of the Government. He could do it now as well as a fortnight hence. As for compromise, the measure might be a compromise with the Anti-Corn-Law-League, but certainly not with the agricultural interest of this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sibthorp -

He had not the slightest hesitation in declaring that in his opinion the conduct of the right hon. Baronet, in delivering the speech which had fallen from him that evening, was such as to excite the disgust and indignation of the British public. He trusted that the English people would combine as one man in an effort to make the Prime Minister understand how odious to them were his proceedings. He would, at some future day, avail himself of a more fitting opportunity of expressing in detail his opinions on this subject. On the present occasion, he would not trespass at any length upon the attention of the House, but would sit down, contenting himself with this simple observation, that a greater insult—a grosser indignity—a more audacious mockery—had never been attempted to be put upon the House of Commons, even by the right hon. Baronet himself, than that which was conveyed by the whole tone, tenor, and matter of the hon. Baronet's speech that evening.

Earl of March -

With permission of the House he would read a few passages from that speech, that they might comprehend how startling, how amazing was the change which had recently been wrought in the mind of the hon. Gentleman on the subject of free trade. The noble Lord read as follows:— He was not about to excuse himself for his vote upon that question. He then thought that the amount of protection was so excessive, that it could not be maintained; that the 23s. duty was more than could be maintained, because no foreign nation could pay it; but he frankly owned that in this he was mistaken, for he did not think that that protection was one bit larger than it ought to be, and he did think that there was this advantage in the present law, that it rallied round it many who would not have rallied round it if that protection had been larger, while no one could say that that protection was too large, looking at the burdens on agriculture; besides, it gave a greater stability and firmness to the law; and he did hope and he believed that there was among the people of this country, as there certainly was by Her Majesty's Ministers, a determination to uphold that law. So spoke the right hon. Gentleman on the 15th February, 1845; and the report assured the public that he resumed his seat amidst a storm of applause. He would be curious to know what demonstration of feeling was likely to await the hon. Gentleman if he were to go back to his constituents on the 15th February, 1846, and to describe to them the opinions which he now held upon the subject of free trade; most assuredly they would hear much that would be calculated to excite their amazement.   

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Herbert,_1st_Baron_Herbert_of_Lea =

 The same opinions without reserve will be the passport with which I shall offer myself to the notice of my constituents; and I am further of opinion that when the question shall be regarded, as soon it will be, calmly and dispassionately, by many of those who take an interest, almost an exclusive interest, in agriculture, they will think that I have neither neglected my duty to them nor to the public at large by giving a hearty, a disinterested, and an honest 314 support to the measures now before the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Howard_(Whig_politician) -

considering the circumstances of the country—considering, also, the success which had hitherto attended free-trade measures—he was prepared to give his assent to the Resolutions to be submitted to-night; and he would beg of the agriculturists to consider whether a measure of this kind, prepared by a strong Government, with the sanction of the Crown, could ever, in the long-run, be defeated.

He thought the period of three years too limited, and that the minimum of protection was rather scanty, for Mr. M'Culloch, the greatest of free-trade authorities, in his celebrated pamphlet or treatise on the Corn Laws argued on the supposition that a fiscal duty of 5s. the quarter might be retained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edward_Grogan,_1st_Baronet

wished to put a question, as an Irish Member, to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury. The whole of the statement which the right hon. Baronet had made to-night was one of reductions; he, therefore, wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would furnish a document containing a column showing the aggregate amount of these reductions, and another column setting forth the mode in which he proposed to make good the deficiency in the revenue which those reductions would occasion. Very considerable alarm existed throughout the country upon this point; and great apprehensions were entertained that the right hon. Baronet would be driven to a proposition for increasing the Income Tax. He was, therefore, anxious to know how the deficiency which would be created was to be made up.  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wakley

     Why, it is because I am firmly persuaded that it is for the benefit of the millions of this country, that it is for the benefit of trade—that it is likely to conduce to the peace of the world—that it will promote and advance the social condition of the millions, and create new markets for their labour—that I, for one, am prepared at once, and without further hesitation, to say, (and I represent nearly 300,000 of the inhabitants of the northern part of this metropolis,) that I feel towards the entire proposal of the right hon. Baronet the strongest possible favour. I feel firmly persuded that no proposal was ever made in Parliament, as a whole, more conducive to the happiness of the people of this country, than that of the right hon. Baronet. But does the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wiltshire, consider that the scheme is not calculated to improve the condition of the people? Why, is it not for reducing the price of bread? Is it not for reducing the price of meat? Is it not proposd with the hope of improving the condition of every family?

I wish them to recollect one little fact with reference to the constituencies of this country. Let them bear in mind, if they do excite the passions of the electors in the agricultural districts and of persons unconnected with agriculture—if their agitation shall extend, not only into the most remote parts of the kingdom, but also into the cities and towns, and shall influence there the feelings of persons who believe that they are dependent on what is called agricultural prosperity, I would beg of them to remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are the consumers of food—not the sellers, and who have no votes at the elections. Now, I would wish to ask them if they are prepared to arrange every hustings in the kingdom as an an instrument of torture to the feelings of the poor man who has not a vote? I say, let them remember that they are about to make an appeal, in my opinion, of a most dangerous character, if it is to have any influence. For the poor man will say, "See what happens:—the parties who return the Members to the House of Commons, are the sellers of food, and we are the consumers of food—they have the votes, and we have none." Do you believe if an appeal of that kind is to be made, that it can do other than lead to a state of feeling of the utmost exasperation, and one, in my opinion, that is likely to be attended with the utmost danger to the peace of society, considering that the millions of this country are the parties who have no votes. They already complain of class legislation; they say that their interests are not protected in the Houses of Parliament; they say, that they have no voice in electing those who are to govern the country. They say, that they have been the victims of class legislation; and yet you are about to call upon the sellers of food to determine whether the consumers of food shall have justice done to them with regard to commercial legislation. I merely throw out these intimations now, because I am convinced, if the appeal be made to which I have referred, and if strong excitement be the product of that appeal, that it will be one of the most dangerous character, and will, in my opinion, threaten the peace of society. Now, Sir, if the hon. Gentlemen are sincere with reference to the feelings of the masses of the people on this question—if they really believe what they say—if they really do consider that the masses of society will be op- 321 posed to the scheme of the right hon. Baronet—I ask them, are they prepared to extend the suffrage to the working people—to those who are the main consumers of food in this country? No, Sir, they are not prepared so to extend the right of voting; and I say, under those circumstances, let them be cautious how they excite feelings of indignation on the part of the millions, and induce those millions to believe that they are, with reference to the legislation of this House, the victims of oppression. Believing as I do that the scheme of the right hon. Baronet has been propounded in a sincere desire to benefit the nation at large, without reference to particular classes or individuals, but for the benefit of all—believing that it is one of a just character; believing, in fact, that there is nothing of injustice in it to any party, I shall give it my most cordial support in every stage of the proceedings; and I am sure that if the right hon. Baronet maintains the noble and high ground which he has taken, the millions of the people will carry his proposition for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gisborne_the_Younger

wished to offer a remark in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member the Coroner for Westminster as to the Members of the Anti-Corn-Law League having received the explanation of the right hon. Baronet with solemn silence. [Mr. WAKLEY: Stubborn silence.] It might be stubborn; but on a subject of so complicated a nature, and involving such a vast number of subjects, it was scarcely possible to express an opinion without having some time allowed for deliberation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Newdigate_Newdegate

He could not, however, pass over an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley). The hon. Member deprecated an appeal to the opinion of the country; but why, he would wish to know, did the hon. Member 323 apprehend dangerous agitation? On what ground did the hon. Member make his powerful appeal to the feelings of his countrymen against the danger of inflaming the passions of the working classes? Did the hon. Member know Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House to be those who were accustomed to excite such angry feelings? Had the hon. Gentleman forgotten 1842? Had he forgotten that period when the yeomanry and gentlemen of England had been mainly instrumental in preserving the peace of the country, disturbed as it was by those who now supported the Anti-Corn-Law League? Had the hon. Member forgotten what he (Mr. Newdegate) had at that time stated out of that House, and for which he had been attacked in that House, and in another place, without notice and in his absence; but in support of which he had afterwards produced evidence, which had satisfied that House that the Anti-Corn-Law League had been implicated in exciting the people? Had he forgotten that it was the agricultural interests which had saved the country on that occasion from the consequences of the attempt thus made? As he was on his legs, and as the question had been mooted, he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the circumstance that when the consequences of their present measure became apparent to the country, and when the property of the agriculturists was sacrificed by it, the Government might perchance not meet with that cordial support from the agricultural interests, when danger threatened, which they had hitherto received. Those who now furnished themselves the means of protecting the country might perchance no longer have the means of doing so; and they would also be taught to bear in mind, on future occasions, that the present measure of the Government had been mainly promoted by agitation. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that he had carefully prepared the mind of this country for the introduction of the measure of 1842; who, he would ask, if the country was prepared, had prepared the country for the measure of 1846; who, but the Anti-Corn-Law League? Was agitation, he would wish to know, to be employed against the agricultural interests alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bridgeman,_3rd_Earl_of_Bradford

aka Viscont Newport

considered that those hon. Members who intended to support the policy enunciated by the right hon. Baronet to-night, contrary to their own conscientious convictions, and the actual or 326 implied pledges they had given to their constituents, would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty. With reference to one remark which had been made, he would observe that no other appeal than a constitutional appeal to the country was contemplated by those hon. Gentlemen who entertained similar opinions with himself. He must say that he did not think the right hon. Baronet was justified in bringing forward such a measure as he had propounded that night without appealing to the country and taking the sense of the constituencies on the question.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Aglionby_Aglionby

      He believed that the Gentlemen connected with the Anti-Corn-Law League had, by reason and argument, made many converts to the same opinions, even among the county constituencies; and he believed that, a few years hence, the conduct of those Gentlemen would receive the approbation it so justly merited. The only objection he had to the efforts of the League was, that they had treated the question rather too much as a class question than as a general question. But, however that might be, they had done great service by enlightening the people of this country on the subject of protection. Had the right hon. Baronet treated the question as a class question, he should have felt bound to oppose his view of the case; but as the right hon. Baronet had treated it, he looked upon it as a great step made towards free trade; for which, as it affected the best interests of the country, he tendered the right hon. Baronet his most cordial thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bankes

He (Mr. Bankes) would ask, what provision was made in this scheme for maintaining the interests of the farmers in general; and, above all, of the little farmers of this kingdom? He could find nothing in it to that effect, or which appeared to have any such purpose. The compromise offered to these interests—to the tenant-farmers—was the consolidation of the highway rate, the payment to medical officers, and the provision for parochial schoolmasters; but what relief would that give to that class of persons? It had been said, that the support to the measure was not confined to the mercantile class, but was participated in by the landowners. Some of the great landowners certainly approved of it; but it was because they were great landowners, and would not suffer by the change; for, by the system of bailiffs, which was cheaper than that of tenants, they would be enabled to get their rents the same as usual. The tenant-farmers would in reality be the sufferers, because their whole class would, in all probability, be swept away by the measure of the right hon. Baronet.

They were asked yearly for an increase in the navy and the army, which they cordially supported, though such augmentation was not wanted for the purpose of protecting their fields, but for the protection of the Oregon, which was wanted not for the purposes of the agriculturist, but for those of the manufacturing interest.