d moderate duty on the import at
all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting
a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United
Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn."
Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the
destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations
of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord
Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord
Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the
motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural
interest in a state of depression while all other interests were
prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition;
the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief
in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be
no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the
motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to
an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his
theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that
every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some
of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws;
and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the
motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James
Graham's. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring
any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded
by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the
country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of
this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by
three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject
was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of
a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of
a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of
expressing his opinions on the subject--opinions utterly at variance
with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the
other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being
interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion
practised on them by the landlords. It was for their adv