Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/201

 provement be so carried out as to develop all the resources of the soil, with security to the farmer, comfort to the labourer, and benefit to all, including even the mistaken landlord himself.

Having given the subjects of Mr. Villiers' speech, I subjoin detached portions.

Independence of foreigners:—

"The difficulty with hon. gentlemen opposite in arguing this question was, that they were unable to defend the law on its real ground, and it was inconvenient to assign any other; for as soon as it was attempted to place it upon any public ground, that instantly became the subject of the closest inquiry: it was sifted and tested in every way to examine if the plea was hollow or true; and there was no one ground which he had heard since he came into that House that had not now been thus thoroughly examined, and as completely exposed. (Hear.) He was curious, therefore, to hear what fresh ground was to be alleged this time. The ground upon which it was placed when first introduced was the most plausible, before it was tested by experience, when it proved to be the most foolish on which it could stand—which was, that it was dangerous for this country to be dependent for its supply of food on other countries, and that, therefore, the landowners should be protected from competition. It was assumed that we might depend upon other countries for our revenue, for the material of manufactures, and for the means of employment to millions of our people, whereby they should obtain bread, but not be dependent upon them for the bread itself. ( Hear.,) That was the plea set forth for the enactment of the law—one which, at the time, all thinking men derided, and which has since become contemptible by the failure of the experiment The returns laid before the House during the last twenty years, showed that since the law was passed we had been dependent on other countries for large supplies of corn, and in the last five years to the amount of 17,000,000 quarters of corn (hear); and that, too, a supply not raised with a view to this country, but obtained under circumstances the most disadvantageous to us. (Hear, hear, hear.) During the thirteen years of the duration of the law passed in 1828, there was imported from foreign countries no less than 30,000,000 quarters of grain actually necessary for the consumption of the people of this country. The advocates for monopoly in the home market would hardly then allege a sufficiency of home supply as an excuse—at least, he would not expect such an excuse from any man having regard for his character and truth. Whether this soil would or could not produce enough to support the people of Great