The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-05 00:00:00

I.IVENING RDITION

FACTS FOR FARMERS.

rye are continually told by Sir Robert Peel, the
Duke of Buckingham, Sir James Graham, the
Duke of Richmond, Mr. Cayley, and the other
leaders of what is called the landed interest in both
Houses of Parliament, that the Corn-laws are in-
tended for the benefit of the farmers and the agri-
cultural labourers :—the landlords, who passed
these laws in 1815, with the Parliament Houses
surrounded by soldiers to keep off the enraged mob,
assure us that the;r only aim was to put money
into the pockets of the tenants and labourers,—
that they derive no benefit themselves from the
Corn-laws. One thing is certain, these laws do
put a great deal of money into somebody's pockets.
The very lowest sum at which the difference be- tween the price of the corn sold every year in
England, and the price at which the same
quantity is sold on the Continent of Europe, is
fourteen millions of pounds sterling. This immense
amount of money is paid by the consumers of agri-
cultural produce, over and above the price at which
it might be bought from the French or Germans—
it is paid by the labourer, the artisan, the widow,
the orphan, the old man, and the babe—for all eat
bread, or oatmeal, or barley cake. But who pockets
all this gold ? That is the question which we are
now to inquire about. The landlords in the Houses
of Lords and Commons tell us that the farmers and
labourers get every farthing of it ; whilst they gain
nothing themselves but blame and ill-will for hav-
ing framed the Corn-laws.
But we must not think that all the landlords
veral, as
in Parliament tell the same story. There are se-
Lord Radnor, Earl Fitzwilliam, and Sir
George
Strickland, who tell us that the Corn-
-1514 inflict g
more reat injury upon the farmers and la-
bourers ; and that they were passed only to put
Y into the pockets.' of the landlords.
Which of these o
Neither, until w
posite stories must w beeve
we have examined both.e Weli have
heard a great deal on one side ; let us now hear
what Earl Fitzwilliam says on the other. His
ers
Lordship,
who is himself one of the greatest land-
own in England, has published three addresses
to the landowners of England. The first appeared
in February, 1831. The next came out in April,
1,835. And the third and last was published in
danuary, 1839.
These three addresses are now
printed in a cheap form, stitched together, and all
Tay be botight of Ridgway, the ulisher, icea-
"l4, London, or ordered
throuehp a b
booksellPer in
any country
town, at 6d. Every farmer or labourer
who wishes to know the truth of this question, about
i;_nths, and perhaps
which all the country is sure to be agitated for many
years to come, will buy-
dresses Lord Fitzwilliarn's first, second, and third Ad-
c to the Landowners of England on the
to orn-laws." We have given the title of the work
prevent mistakes ; and now we shall give a few
short extracts, in order that our readers may judge
of the sack by the quality of the sample.
0 His by
begins with an inquiry into the
coos god
of the Corn-laws upon the most nume-
°us body of agriculturists. We give his own
words :
ourer in
b First of all, let us examine the case of the la-
husbandry.
hoLnok at his habits and circumstances—consider
de :iv large a portion of his-slender income is expen-
a in the purchase of bread and flour—and can
fil:eYdof you sineve at the conclusion that he is bene-
tbi, from
hornliardly being the case, that probably, there is
a class of labourers more interested in having,
bandy cheap than those who are engaged in hus-
co
nY ; because there is none that spends so much,
upon ' Parativelv, upon the necessaries, and so little
the comforts, or the luxuries of life.
His Lordshi every ins p now appeals to experience ; and
the follow.
n above the age of fifty can tell whether
Period of th
--ing statement of facts be true :—Did the
is su e so-called agricultural prosperity, which.
1810,PrZei d o have reached
t
labourer y bring comfort into the cottage of the the firs. Did it give him a greater command over
‘ necessary of life ? Did it enable him to
obtain s
thus -ornething beyond the necessaries of life, and
timesthose to, raise himself in the scale of society ? To
time landowners who took advantages of the
landowners
to those tenants whose landlords
did not T
boureri, e
but whether
' know well that it brought wealth ;
ether it brought comfort to the la-
otherxcept in districts where enclosures or
to
mprovements, which cannot be repeated, were
.. actual
is' neverthpelrogress, is a very different question. It
efore ess, a question which must be solved,
b
• We can determine whether agricultural proous-r
penty
y
into your presence,
.. can be trulpredicated of that period of .
. men who
ni.Lory. s..
the ummon, therefore,
remember those
illing to give
times, and who are able and w
are old enough to
both
Let these
inquiries
Y" an account of their then condition..e
situations. Make
them
in
them •
districts of old enclosure—make in
be made in various
districts of open field—make them in the north,
and in the middle, and in the south of England,
excludin p
on articular spots where such
g ly those
improvements were in actual progress; as, when
°nee finished, cannot be repeated. If your inquiries
are so conducted, I am much mistaken if you will
not find that the boasted period of agricultural
prosperity was, to the labourer, a season of distress
—and the one during which he began to fall from
his former station to that lower condition to which
re now see him reduced in many parts of England.
Lord Fitzwilliam tells us that a labourer, his
wife, and three children consume every week about
five gallons and a half of wheat, or day two-thirds
of a bushel. Now the way in which we must judge
of the condition of the labourers in different years
is, by first looking at the price of wheat, next at
the rate of wages for the same time, and thus learn-
ing how much there is to spare over and above the
money laid out for bread and flour. His Lordship
gives us a table of the rates of wanes, te price of
two-thirds of a bushel of corn, and theh difference
lover and above the money required for bread in a
thirtytabourer
years. He says, that from 1803 to
81.0 the labourers' wages in May were steady at
en shilling
sk D •
,„ a-wee . During these seven years,
telliwheat rose steadily in price, and the five and half
ons of wheat, which cost the labourer four shil-
lings and eightpence hi 1803, cost him eight shil-
lings and tenpence in 1810 ;—so that whilst he had
64shillings and fourpence to spare for clothing and
(i. ther coliforts in 1803, he had only one shilling and
:70pence in 1810. The following is the table fur-
wihshee by Lord Fitzwilliam. Let every reader,
Study n:aPPens to be an old man with a good memory
With 't,and explain to younger men how far it agrees
his experience.

Sbowi TABLE
b evort,e, the WAGES in MAY, and the DIFFERENCE
of
"' AGES `HEATICE between TWO-THIRDS
L'uSHEL of

Difference between
\rear Prices of Wages and Price,
Wares a Week. two-thirds of a being Money to
Bushel of spare for Clothing
Wheat. and mitt r
"----...,„,...5.....5.
Comforts.
,--
179.,
S. d. a. d. a. d.
~.,, ••. ...... 7 0 4 4 2 8
1g9.;,113 ......... 7 0 4 2 210
0 ... ...... 7
180, ". 0 5 9 1 3 ...... 7 0 2 5
110; ......... 10 0 9 5
9 10 0 2
jB°,s3 ...
... 9 0 5 7 3 5
4 .......... 10 0 411 5 4
1805 .... ''" 10 0 5 0 5 0
18° ......... 10 0 7 3 2 9
1807 ....... 10 0 6 7 3 5
I°4 .... 10 0 6 0 4 0
_log .... 10 0 6 6 3 6
1810 ... •••• 10 0 8 0 2 0
11:411 ..• ..... 10 0 $lO 1 2
1812 ..... 12 0 710 4 2
1 ..
813
... .... 14 0
141.1 •• ..... 14 0 10 6 3 9
1,415 ...
...... 14 ' 9 9 1 411
6 1 7 11
'Bl6 ....•.... 12 0 lBl7 '•••..... 11 0 5 4 6 9
1818 ......... 12 0 6 3 4 7
9
1419 ......... 12 0 7 0 4 3
0 5 0
1421
1820 " ....... 1 5 11
......... 12
12 0 6
la 6 6 6
'1822 ......... 10 0
4 6 5 6 823 ... ...... 10 0
1824 . 9 3 8 6 4
........
0 14 5i 4 4
6
825 .'' ..... 10 0
5 4 8 182g' ........ 1 1 0
58 5 4
..... "• 11 0 410 6 2
2 ...
• ..... 11 co
48 6 4
1828 •••
.. ''• 11 0
.. 11 0
50 6 0
.......
56 5 6
Lc.47.-----------.----- _

Let it not be forgotti
rely justly observes, "
rates increases with the
1611
and if you exatnine th
find that a high pri
followed by an increase
oof
table be correct, then i
f hwas the loxes alwas b
wheat

!n, that as Lord Fitzwilliam
the pre3sure of the poora'-
rise in the price of corn ;
e Parliamentary returns you
ice of corn is immediately
in these rates." If the above
it is clear that the labourer's
een greatest when the prices
't, and that he had the least