The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-22 00:00:00

This table shows that in exporting cotton cloth in
820, there remained for profits and wages 10d. pee
yard ; 1825, 7d. ; 1830, 6 d. ; and 1836-7-8, only about
‘ti-d., to remunerate capitalist and labourer ;so that
unless the Legislature looked to it, in a few years we
should lose our commerce altogether. Sir Robert had
talked of the burdens on land. Now what did they
amount to ? Why, the land-tax did not average 9d.
per acre per year on the lands now in cultivation.
Teen with:regard ro the malt-tax, who pays that ? Net
:he landowner, but the drinker of the beer. Then with
regard to the Church-rates and Poor-rates, the land-
owner bought his land subject to these burdens, and
made his calculations in the purchase of his land accor-
dingly. The Church and the Poor had just the same
right to their portion as the landlord had to his. But
was it fair that the wealthy landlord should endeavour
to shift these taxes on the consumers. A property-tax
was the only fair tax. He knew not how wealthy Sir
Robert Peel might be, but he was convinced
that he (Mr. Johnson) paid ten times more in direct
taxation than that Right lion. Baronet.
Mr. AIKEN said it was true Parliament had at their
command the official returns, but the evidence they
would have produced was such as no official return
could furnish. They had no returns shewing the in-
crease of manufactures in the United States, and in the
States of Europe had they had such returns
they would have found that articles that were
formerly supplied by us were now supplied by
our competitors. The Delegates had been desirous
of furnishing them with information not contained in
any returns. One great cause of the apparent increase
of our exports was the extensive emigration which had
taken place. We had exported four millions of our popu-
lation, and they consume a great portion of these ex-
ports. If ever we stopped in our progress, we should
immediately retrograde—and unless the Corn-laws were
repealed, we should infallibly stop. These Laws cut
with a double edge, in enhancing the price of every
thing to the manufacturer, in this, and in many instances
prohibiting his export trade by their operation, while, at
the same time, they enable his competitors to obtain
every thing at the lowest possible rate.
He was sorry to find an argument used in the House
a Lords by Earl Winchilsea, that abundance was the
cause of distress ; and he was equally sorry to find
that Lord Stanhope said their object was to reduce rho
ethkotuoghtitleiitr weaosn:thi7iuseLps''t'arsryttvl
wages of the labourer. To that statement of Lord
Winchilsea he would say—first, that it w,as totally con-
trary to the truth ; and, secondly, that it would have a
tendency to create great turmoil in the country, which
it had been the object of the Delegates to allay. In
rwceolpinercenlsustshioeaynliwletiernecwi
iodnuiasltpdieornssterdotontgoldytihsuteruigrrebsa,ganerenieot.ul esmderrinsotpr
districts,
nothing but constitutional means, but to go on with
firmness until they had attained their object.
be-
fore rlit e Hon.
DelegatesA .
I wenttj RA
back a
the public, and those Members of Parliament who had
supported them in the House, should have some notion
of the character of the evidence which they had
in-
tended to present. Sir Robert Peel and
in
the House of Commons appeared to have overlooked a
most important part of the inquiry—the agricultural
portion of it.--(Hear, hear.) They were prepared to
show that the continuation of the Corn-laws were de-
trimental to the prosperity of the agriculturists. At
the same time that they ,inquired into the cause
of the manufacturing distress, they had intended to
inquire into the operation of the Corn-laws, as regarded
the farming interest. They had wished to learn from
agricu:turists what effect the free importation of grain
would have on the farming interests, whether a repeal
of the Corn-laws were likely to throw land out of culti-
vation, what were the exclusive taxes agriculturists
paid, and so on. These were the questions they would
have wished to have put to agriculturists at the bar of
the House of Commons.—(Cries of " Hear, hear,
hear.") Only a few years ago there was a heavy
duty on the importation of wool. It was then
about sixpence a pound, and there was now merely
a nominal duty upon it—about id. or ld,per lb.
What effect had that reduction of duty had upon the
rearers of sheep? It had not injured the farmers, but
700i(rnavtic:
81
aaonsl
oti
dlie.ei_nah-ri
,;
e,t
on the contrary, it had increased the demand, and the
value of estates was trebled.—(Hear, hear.) He would
show that Highland estates, even in the most remote
t(Til
Liiishelt.eyericGnnt
eosl
eswosn-gfsfael iric.set,eec‘dlso,
tau7asn,toset
oors)lo,d:)..hei
n;ra:edit
in
it was sold for 60,000/.—(Hear, hear.) In 1781
71 hei7er improved
estate
fnrer lvB7e 801
9
804
the rental of the Glenelg estate, in Inverness-shire,
was 600 i. a year ; towards the close of the last century
it was sold for 30,000/. ; and in 1811 it was sold fOr
100,000/. It had been sold since 1811, and the increase
had been in the like ratio. That showed what effect
the increase of manufactures bad had upon the most
uncultivated lands.—(Hear.) They could show that
in all the counties of Scotland, in the most agricultural
counties even, the value of land had been doubled,
trebled, nay even quadrupled within the last forty
years, which had been entirely owing to the increase
of manufactures.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Their
worths, Chairman had set the example of alluding
to what had passed in another place, and he thought the
reason given by Lord Howick for opposing inquiry was
one that would not be satisfactory to the, country, el.
though it was one which satisfied him (Mr. Murray),
that the inquiry would be P
productive of no benefit
their
unhappy Noble Lord had said, " There would be
unhappy Chairman in his seat—whether he would be
or whether he would be writing
verses, to the evidence, .O.
whether he might occasionally indulge in 'a
verses, or
for him to say."—( Laughter.) If
little repose, it was not
to be
that was the way their evidence wasd.
Thetreated, it was
as Kell the inquiry had been refuse next speech
he would allude to was that of Lord Worsley. Ile had
thought after the speech that Noble Lord had made at an
agricultural dinner, he would not have objected to the
motion;
but he appeared to have made up his n jit)d
against any repeal, and, therefore, he said it was of
no
use tendering evidence. Then Mr. Cayley said that
"if this were a question of hung-et, did the Hon. Gen-
tleman wean to assert that he thought the members of
the landed body would not come forward as soon as the
manufacturers." He (Mr. Murray) maintained it was a
question of hunger, and if Mr. Cayley had entered
into the consideration of the subject, he would have
found it was so.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Then Lord
Stanley drew conclusions from the fact of ad,h_
tionat mills having been built. Why, that was part
of their case--(Hear, hear)—and if they had been
allowed to have gone into evidence, Lord Stanley
would have seen that was not a subject for congratu-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel had stated that
the consumption of wheat in this country was 52,000,000
of quarters.—(A laugh). Sir Robert liked generaliz-
ing, but he wished that Right Hon. Gentleman would
enter into details, for if he had done so, he would bare
found the consumption of wheat did not amount to
15,000,000 of quarters, and would not have made the
ridiculous statement he did.—(llear, hear). However,
they could refute all the misstatements of their opponents
—they would do so so, and no doubt the effect would
not. be lost on the country—( Hear, hear).
Mr. COBDEN trusted that their friends would not