The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-13 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

with this country, when they threatened to se-
!,arate her from the Union if she persevered. But South
Arolina did establish a tariff then, which will soon ex-
-1 e.. Hear, hear.) Viewing this question generally
• t-, its effects upon national industry and
:oat peace in relation to foreign countries,
L.:.1 difficult to say whether it would be more advan-
agcou3 to individuals or the State generally, as regards
~;mroPrcial profits and political friendship, that the Corn
a'%t should be repealed. The promotion of industry, the
ncrease of profitable returns, the acquisition of wealth, and
h ;:;aintenance bf secur:ty at hone, and peace abroad,

lea:ling benefits which I think may be naturslly
expected to result from a repeal of the Corn-la ws. —( Hear. )
r, the next subject to which I will advert is the oh-
r, existin in this country to the adoption of beneficial
oh-
existing
is openly and boldly stated by those who
~Isintercsted on the subject, that the persons who are
otp'sed to a change in this law are the landowners—that
are in the possession of the Legislature, and that
their authority is unchecked and uncontrouled, and that
'lathing but actual fear will induce them to change these
laws. We cannot conceal from ourselves, that if the
working classes of this country had been less anxious for
the shadow than for the substance, we might perhaps at
this moment be acting under the most degrading and difficult

legislation

circumstances under which men, having responsible duties
to perform, could be found—under the influence of fear.
And, really, if one could hope to influence the landlords,
it would be desirable to show them that there is no danger
to their interests in doing justice to the people, and that
there would be danger in withholding it. But Ido think
that the people have a right to know upon this occasion
distinctly the grounds upon which the landowners of this
country seek to maintain th is law. Is it local taxation ?
Are they ready to submit to an inquiry, and to abide by
the result ? Is it general taxation ? Will they be ready
to verify the facts, and surrender the Corn-laws merely
upon a commutation of taxes? Is there any social
or political reason which they will venture to state?
With respect to local taxation, perhaps the most enlight-
ened ...73 best informed of that party, the Right Hon.
Baronet the 1-i• -.-z.!r for (either Pembroke or Tamworth)
said that be gave his asaea.t. ,n the Corn-laws on account of
the local taxation borne by the land proprietors, and be
said, " If you cut down these local burdens there is no
ground for the Corn-laws."A On the 11,-bateppoi. the malt
tax he stated that if the New Poor Law continued in
ration—if the tithes were commuted—and if the county
prosecutions were charged upon the public funds, there
would be no ground left but the malt tax for the conti-
nuance of the Corn-laws. Sir, I think I have a right to
assume that the Right lion. Baronet now considers the
malt tax the only ground for justifying the continuance of
the Corn-laws, because the other conditions have
been fulfilled—the ;poor-rates have been reduced 60
per cent--the criminal prosecutions have been charged upon
theConsolkiated Fund, and the tithes have been commuted.
Are the landowners ready to go upon the ground merely
of the malt tax?—( Hear.) Will they contend that a
tax which at the most is only equal to 4,500,0001. a year,
bearing indirectly upon the landed interest, is an indemnity
to the public for the enormous losses sustained by the
Corn-laws ?—( Hear.) But what a principle it is that
because the public do not consume malt enough to satisfy
the landowner, that therefore their bread is to be taxed—
as if that would make them better able to consume more.
—(Hear.) If any indemnity were required, surely it ought
to be a tax upon foreign barley, and not a tax upon foreign
wheat, and oats, and rye-4 Hear)—.if in fact foreign
barley is not now taxed.—( Hear, hear.) But suppcs-
ineg the Right Honourable Baronet truly represents the
landed proprietors, would they be willing the malt
tax should be taken off, and relieve us from the
duties upon foreign corn ? for I am satisfied that a
largo proportion of those who advocate the repeal of those
law; would be willing to enter on such terms—( Hear,
hear)—satisfied that four and a half millions would be a
very small reduction compared with the beneficial effects
which would be produced by allowing industry and enter-
prise in this country full play.— ( Hear. hear.) Suppos-
ing this not to be assented to by the agriculturists, what
other terms would they be disposed to accept:? Compensation
to the landowners, or commutation of general taxation ?
Do they consider themselves entitled to compensation, like
the slave-owners • or, will they prove the taxes to press
unequally upon them ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe that
the present system is perpetuating an evil upon this
country—if you call for compensation the exist-
ing interests which form the ground of your case now
will be still stronger some years hence, or interests will
then have arisen which do not now exist. But I believe
it would be a good bargain for the country to buy up all
the land which the advocates of the Corn-laws say would
be thrown out of cultivation by a repeal of the Corn laws,
nd to support all the unemployed cultivators in the mead
,me ; I think that would be better than to allow these
ormous evils to continue.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is
erous ground for the agriculturists to enter upon the
:ion of more or less taxation, because it raises the

dang

question, what are the exemptions which they have en-
joyed ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, 50,000,000/. has been paid by
personal property for the probate of legacy duty, from
which the landowners are free.—( Hear, hear.) If the
landowners press the inquiry, I think the balance will not
be in their favour.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, Ido not think it
my business to inquire what the landlords will lose by the
repeal of the Corn-laws, because when I learn what fhe
community lose by the continuance of those laws, I am
satisfied that not a moment should escape before that loss
is put an end to.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I think
it is impossible for the landlords to deny that the state-
ments as to the great fall of rents to be anticipated
front the repeal—are greatly exaggerated.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir, I have made inquiries as to the Channel Islands,
whit:ll do not consume any of the produce they grow, but
export all their productions to this country, and import all
their corn from Dantzie and Hamburgh, and the difference
in: their price of wheat to ours is but 30 per cent., and
that spread over eighteen years, though the price rises in
proportion as we import more from Europe.—(Hear.)
Sir, I wish I could think that the expence of bringing
wheat into this country would be less than it is; but what
I have just said, shows the groundlessness of the fears en-
tertained of being inundated from from foreign ports.—
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I wish to know if the landowners of
this country see nothing in the signs of the times to
make them pause before they decide upon maintaining
the system opposed by the intelligence, the industry the
commerce, and the numbers of this country.—( Hear,
hear.) Are they blind to the fact that those demanding a
change in these laws, are those most anxious to trust to
the present political institutions of this country ?—( Hear,
hear.) Do they hope that these persons are so weak in
spirit that they will sit down under the disappointment,
contented with reflecting they have misplaced their confi-
dence in this House ?—(llear, hear.) And have they no
apprehensioa that those persons will henceforward call for
those changes in the institutions of the country, which they
believe are essential to its welfare.—( Hear, hear.) Sir,
I do not wish to offer any thing to this House, in the lan-
guage of intimidation or threat, but I trust that this House,
before they refuse to take the question into their considera-
tion, will reflect that they are taking a step the importance
and the responsibility of which they cannot too highly
estimate.—( Hear, bear.) Sir, I move that this House
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to take
into consideration the duties on the importation of foreign

grain.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, in seconding the
motion, commenced by remarking, that the party who had
so long in that House supported the Corn-laws, did not
now seem perfectly united among themselves ; and some
bf them appeared to be receding from the high ground
which they once occupied, and to admit that the Corn-laws
were, after all, not founded in absolute wisdom.—( Hear,
hear.) The farmers throughout the country were begin-
ning to ask the question, how far these laws bad been for
their advantage.—( Hear, bear.) He considered these
laws unjust, because they gave protection to one part of
the community at the expense of the great body of the
community, and were thus contrary to sound national policy.
The manufacturirf, interests represented that as corn in
this country varied to 70s. a quarter and upwards, whereas
upon the shores of the Baltic the price was from 30s. to
.103., a great;advantage was given to foreign manufacturers :
that our hosiery was displaced by the manufacturers of
S,ixony, and that our Sheffield manufacturers, instead of
their trade advancing, as from the increasing population
of the country and from our extended connections a ith
foreign states, we had a right to expect, were at a stand ;
and they point out to the attention of the House that rn,2r-
chants are at this moment importing hardware goods from
the Continent, for the purpose of re-exporting them from

, . .
this country. He would also wish to draw the attention of
the House to the fact that that which had formerly been
the great staple manufacture of this country, he meant the
woollen manufacture, was at present in the most depressed
state. In the year 182.0, there were exported from this
c,untry to Russia, 5,400,000 yards of woollen cloth ; at
this time there is not exported to Russia, one single yard of
woollen cloth. What was the inference to be drawn from
this circumstance ? Why, the inference was obvious, that the
m-mufacturers of the Continent were enabled to produce a

woollen cloth of equal quality to that produced by our manu,
facturers, and at such a reduced price as totally to exclude
us from those markets, which we had hitherto been accus-
tomed to supply. What was the statement of Mr. Porter,
who was a very high authority on those subjects ? He
says, that the more he looks at the present policy, the less
does he like to think of it ; and he goes on to point out
the application of what he says, by showing that while we
have an increase in population, there is every symptom of
a decrease in the manufactures—a decrease in the means
of industry and subsistence. The great manufacturing
class of this country considered themselves in danger at
this moment—they felt that there was a cloud hanging
over them, and if that cloud should burst, all the manu-
facturers of the country would be overwhelmed by the
torrent ; and if the manufacturing interest fell, in the end
the agricultural interest must perish also. He would now
address a few words to the House as to the effect which he
conceived the Corn-laws had produced and were likely to
produce on the landed interest. lie well recollected what
took place at the passing of those laws in the vear 1815—at
that time there was a great excitement of the public mind
on the subject, and he well recollected the loud clamour of
the people for cheap food. At that time there was a perse-
vering determination actuating the great majority of that
House and of the other House of Parliament to carry their
laws, in spite of the feelings of opposition on the part of the
people, indeed it might almost be said, that in consequence
of the commotions excited in London on this subject, the
Corn-laws had been carried. Now he would ask, what
were the expectations and promises held out to the fame,-
by the promoters of these laws ? It had been said by the pro-
motersof the Corn-laws, that it was the intentionof these laws
to keep up the price of corn to 803. a quarter, nay, they
vent still further—they stated that it was their intention
by these laws to keep up the price of corn to the utmost
extent, and that they had no idea that the price would
e
r fall so low as 803. a quarter. Now he would ask,
have the promises thus made to the farmer been ever rea-
lised—what had been the fate of the farmer since thcso
laws were passed. Ho would wish to draw the attention
14--lit ..o
ltilu3efor a f©w moments to the statement he was
.1,1
le 1 how these laws had worked. For
~.44 -*-i-3ifiis afte4l4l passing of the Corn-laws in 1815,
, vshad been iii h. in 1817 the price of wheat was
- tilePd •
,Sttruld now he nsidered a famine price. Wheat
:s,.___!. . a quarter.,.;: ;In 1818 wheat was 83s. a quarter..
ettr,_l7.) Tbk promoters of the Corn-laws said
,:-.

11~~1~
"~~ S

at that time that these laws had completely effected
their object, and they prided themselves on their success,
but he would wish to compare the then state with what
followed. Year after year from that period, the price of
corn fell. The price of corn fell to 775. 765. 665. 603.
per quarter. In 1828, the price of wheat was 60s. a
quarter. In 1829, it was 663. a quarter; in 1830, it was
445. a quarter. In 1831, it was 665. a quarter. In 1835,
it was 395. a quarter. He would, therefore, ask the sup-
porters of this law, bow the promise had been kept to the
farmer, that the price of wheat would never fall below 80s.
a quarter ? But the melancholy part of the story was
this, that while the price of wheat fell, the rents
were kept up to their fullest extent.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Year after year, had the landlord been striving to keep
up his rent, until the landholder at last was obliged
to acknowledge that it was impossible he could obtain the
full amount of his rent. At this period the landlord had
recourse to a most disgraceful expedient. He made a
semblance of returning that portion of the rent which he
could not get, but continued the liability of the farmers to
the full amount of rent, instead of consenting to ente r
into a new arrangement with him on the subject.—( Hear,
hear.) What was the consequence ?---why that hundreds
and thousands of farmers, without any fault which could
be attached to them were, year after year, brought down
from affluence to beggary, relying on the promises which
had been made to them. The unfortunate farmer after
having paid all his profits and interest—paid all his
capita also—and the whole of his property passed
into the pockets of his landlord. He would appeal
to those who now heard him, whether they had
not seen farmers, whom they had known formerly in afflu-
ence, breaking stones on the high road—whether litany
farmers had not been reduced to seek refuge in the poor-
house—whether many had not committed suicide?—
( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.) He
would confidently state that such had been the case.
There were countless statements in the newspapers of
that time, of farmers who had been so reduced by distress
that they had committed suicide ; of others who had died
of broken hearts, being no longer able to endure the ab-
ject misery to which they had been reduced. The more
he considered this subject the more was he convinced
that the Corn-laws had signally failed in producing the
effect which they were intended to produce. The fact
was, that the promoters of the Corn-laws, in their
zeal for their ~wn interest, had made a rem:n-1(-
.14e nv.,esight, inafmt.clz as they had only limited the
zupp?), of corn from abroad, while they had left the home
produce without limit—they had thus cut off the only
source from which a regulation of price could take place.
How was it to be supposed that in a small island like this,
seeing that the fluctuation of the price was regulated by
the alternation of the seasons—how was it to be supposed,
that in a country where the seasons were so constantly
changing, producing sudden alterations from high to
low prices, that it could be otherwise than exces-
sively difficult for the farmer to say what was the amount
of the rent which he could safely pay ? He had no hesita-
tion in declaring that that system which raised the price
of food to the industrious classes, in order to enrich still
more the affluent, was productive of great injury to the
community, was unjust in its operation, and was morally
wrong, and there never was a maxim so true as that which
says, that the measure which is morally wrong can never
be politically right. He would, therefore, entreat the
llouse, in the name of those whose petitions had been
presented by himself and others, not to turn a deaf ear to
their prayers. The Legislature on this question stood in
a false position with respect to the people, which could not
be maintained ; it was certain that they must yield
this question at last, and was it not better to do
so while they were asked. There was a growing feeling
throughout the country on this subject. With regard to
the depressed state of our manufacturing industry, of which
agriculture composes but one branch, he was convinced
the best policy to relieve that depression was, the policy of
free trade. In the present artificial state of society it
might be difficult to carry out these principles at once, but
in this instance there was no reason why these principles
should not be acted upon. He would now make a few ob-
servations on the amendment of the Hon. Member for the
North Riding of Yorkshire—that amendment professes to
explain the effect of the Corn-laws, and divides itself into
two points. Ist. It upholds the system of Corn-laws, be-
cause it says that in consequence of the heavy taxation of
this country it is necessary that protection should
be granted to vested interests—by vested interests
he supposed the Honourable Member meant the
landed proprietars, and this protection was sought by the
landed proprietors, in consequence of the heavy taxation
to which they were subjected. He was ready to meet the
question, and if it could be demonstrated that the landed
proprietors were subjected to any unjust share of taxation,
he was ready to take the subject into consideration, and if
it could be shown that the land-tax, or the poor-rate rested
in unjust or unfair proportions on them, he would afford
them relief, but this could not be made the excuse for re-
sisting the prayer of the country, and checking its pros-
perity. He believed this to be a fallacy. He did not con-
sider that the landed proprietor was taxed in a greater, if
he was in an equal degree with a poor man—the poor man
who purchased his highly taxed commodity, was, in pro-
portion to his means, as highly taxed as the greatest Noble
in the land. He would now pass to the more important
part of the Hon. Member's amendment. It stated that the
Corn-laws afforded protection to the consumer. Ile
should like to hear that proved. He need not ask the
Hon. Member to dwell upon this point, more especially as
he knew it to be a favourite maxim of his that dear food
was advantageous to the poor. Philosophers of his stamp
argued this question unfairly, for when asked why dear
food was advantageous to the poor, they said that wages
followed the high prices of provisions, and that, therefcre,
the poor would not suffer from the high price of corn. He
(Sir Geo. Strickland) well knew that it was a maxim of
Adam Smith that wages in the long run must be regulated
by the price of food, but the Hon. Member left out the
most important part of the doctrine of Adam Smith, that
although wages followed the price of food, it was at an

awful distance.—( Hear, hear.) When the price of corn
was suddenly raised from 395. to 80s., wages had no ten-
dency to follow this, but they always followed the average
of a number of years past. He would call upon the Hon.
Member to state distinctly any instance of a labourer re-
ceiving 2s. a-day when corn was 40s. a quarter, having
his wages doubled and receiving 4s. when corn was 80s.
a quarter ; no such thing could be proved. The able-
bodied labourer who could stand out thus against his
master for wages, could not be considered in the light of a
poor man. The able-bodied labourer receiving ample
wages, possessing a cottage with his family around him,
was, perhaps, the happiest of human beings, because he
was exempt from care—( Hear, hear)—but how was he
affected by the dearness of corn ? Did he not suffer in
consequence? He ( Sir G. Strickland) utterly denied that
his wages were ever doubled with the price of corn. He had
seen the effect of a rise in corn on such families—he had seen
that when wheat was too dear to enable them to buy the best
description—they had been forced to feed their families on
unwholesome bread, or to abstain from wheaten bread en-
tirely, and use barley bread instead. He had seen agricul-
tural labourers and their families in circumstances like
these—their health gradually declining, until at length
they were attacked by typhus fever, and many of them car-
ried off; and be would ask the Hon. Member to say if he
would continue to maintain his hard-hearted position, and
contend that wages followed the price of food. He would
now consider for a moment the important position laid down
by the Hon. Gentleman, that dear bread was of advantage to
the poor. Who were the poor? Not the able-bodied
labourers. But he would ask, what was the situation of
the poor widow who had to maintain herself on a small
pittance, when a rise of corn took place ? Whenlit was
doubled in price, how were persons thus situated to pur-
chase it ? Hundreds of instances could be proved in which
wages had never been raised in consequence of a rise in
tho price of corn. What then became of the Hon. Gen-
man's position that the high price of corn was advantage-
ous to the poor. There were symptoms in this country
at the present moment, of a wide-spread discontent
among the labouring classes; he should be sorry that any
expression should drop from him which should bear the
appearance of countenancing the violent language that
had been used, and which, if the users of it
would listen to his humble voice nothing should
induce them to repeat ; but it was the duty
of the Legislature to watch these symptons. If they
saw the labourers uniting in masses, choosing delegates,
arming themselves, purchasing pikes, they might rest
assured that the best way of explaining this would be by
a reference to the old but true maxim, that want
of food was the greatest cause of discontent.—(Hear.)
If they saw such symptoms as these they must come to the
conclusion that there was some distress and affliction
among the people. In those representations which had
been made, and which by some had been doubted, there
was a great check to the manufacturing interests of the
country.—( Hear, hear.) He would now conclude with
one observation, and one observation only, that he hoped
he should live to see the day when the landed proprietors
of England—the Aristocracy—the proud Aristocracy of
England—would look back with feelings of regret and
sorow, not unmixed with shame, that they ever filled their
coffers with money by raising the price of every morsel of
bread that was eaten by the humblest and most wretched
of their fellow-creatures.

Mr. CAYL E Y then rose to propose the amendment
of which he had given notice. He did so under feelings
of considerable difficulty, after having heard the very able
and ingenious speech of the Hon. Mover of the motion
' then before the House. Ho was fearful, however true
and just the views that he entertained of the present
question might be, that they would suffer from inability
to do justice to them on his part.—(Hear, hear.)
With reference to the observations that had fallen both
from the mover and seconder, he must confess that if
he had come into that House without knowing the sub-
ject under discussion, he should have thought that the table of
the House had been loaded with petitions from the far-
mers and the labourers for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
—(Hear, hear.) Instead of speaking as be expected they
would have done on the side of the manufacturers, they had
spoken on behalf of the farmers, just as if the agriculturist
and the labourer had requested them to advocate their in-
terests. No doubt upon the subject of food a great deal of
plausible arguments and sophistry had been put forth.
His Hon Friend had taunted him with stating that dear
bread was good fur the labourer. Now what he stated
was this—that from practical experience he knew cheap
corn rnadu the dearest bread that the labourer could eat ;
because the farmer, when corn was cheap, found it impost
sible to give employment io the labourer.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Mover went at great length into what he con-
ceived to be the opinions of the agriculturist and the la-
bourer ; and what ought to be the opinion of the farmers.
Of course it became every one to speak with doubt upon
all subjects, particularly so abstruse- a one as that now be-
fore the House ; but if he were to judge from the theories
of the Hon. Members on the subject of rtiang4PtPres, he
thought that they were entitled to very little faith from the
farmers and labourers, Now, what had the non. Member
stated with regard to the
ad been de.
inzhordination of the labourers
in IMO ? It was notorious that the tar
1""a
pressed for a long time after the war, biu—t-the farmer
never reduced the wages of the labourers as quickly as
might have done, in proportion as foodbecame dear.
The farmers had been for a long period in a state of
distress, and at last they were reduced to the condition
of being unable to keep their labourers employed. That
pressure upon the farmer arose from the low price of corn,'