The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-14 00:00:00

by the repeal of the Corn-laws. Some suggested that
those thrown out of employment by the change, would
betake themselves to manufactures ; but was it possible
to believe that individuals having arrived at the age of
30 or 40, and having all their lives been used to a whole-
some atmosphere, who hadall their days earned their daily
bread by the sweat of their brow,but in the open fields—
was it possible to conceive that they would at once go
into the vicious and noisome atmosphere ? Another
class suggested that there should be a large emigration;
but would the House of Commons, who, in passing the
Reform Bill, had taken care that all should be repre-
sented but the agricultural labourers—(Cheers)—would
they suggest such a vile scheme for getting rid of the
nation's pride—a bold peasantry. Was that the reward
the House of Commons would give to those who had so
long and so often beaten the foe from our shores—who
had, under our naval and military commanders, so fre-
uently planted our flag on the shores of our enemies ?
They would never, he was certain, give in to such a sel-
fish systeni ?:-.zialation.—(Loud cheers.) Out of all
the schemes that had beer; yet proposed he agreed most
in that of the Hon. Baronet the Matrtber for Leeds,
who wished for an entirely free trade; he could under-
stand that principle ; but if it was desirable to be car-
ried out, the motion ought not to be for a repeal of the
Corn-laws, but for the repeal of all restricting duties
whatever, either on corn or manufactures. He doubted
whether his Hon. Friend the President of the Board of
Trade, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would
'-see voted for such a motion—(Cries of " Hear")—be-
House were to come to such a resolution oncause, if
they must alter tine whole financial policy of the coun-
try. How could they then get a revenue—how main-
tain faith with the pu'elig creditor—if they were to
sweep away every Custom }louse and Excise Office.
—(Laughter.) He did not believe that any person
except the Hon. Member for Xilkenny thought that our
establishments were too large—(A laugh)—he would
be most happy to vote with that Hon. Member for the
reduction of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
but most certainly the establishments of the country
were anything but too large. The only other alterna-
tive would be a property tax, and the raannfacturers
would themselves be the very first complain of such
an inquisitorial system, which would expose their
profits or their losses in some measure to the world.
There was only another topic to which he would allude,
and that was the danger of the population being de-
pendent upon a foreign country for their supply of bread
corn. It was said that the interests of countries would
be so interwoven by such free legislation, that we would
secure constant peace. He would be most glad to see
such a system established, but still he thought that it
was dangerous to rely entirely upon the 'amity or good
feelings of foreigners. It would be remembered what
took place just two months ago, Corn was high in this
I country an being admitted at only a duty of Is,—spe-
culators sent for corn to France—at Rochefort many
cargoes had been purchased, but the people, being
in a state of excitement compelled the King
of France to put an end at once to the ex-
portation of corn.—(Hear.) This was in a time
of profound peace ; how then would it be in a state of
war ? Foreign countries would adopt a new species of
warfare—they would only have to close their ports to
carry famine and disease amongst the population of this
country. They would have no longer to send a fleet
or armies to fight us ; they would close their ports, and
then this country would be compelled to yield to what-
ever demands they made. The Right Hon. President
of the Board of Trade complained that there had been
a fluctuation of prices under the existing law, but ac-
cording to a report which he had that day seen—a report
made by a Government agent (Dr. Bowring), he
found it laid down that Tuscany owed all its prosperity
to there being established a free trade in corn ; accord-
ing to the averages of corn at Leghorn, according to
the same report, the fluctuations there were nearly
as great as they had ever been in this country.
In 1826 the price was 28s. ; in 1827, 395. ;
1828, 41s. 10d. ; 1829, 465. 3d. ; 1830, 38s. 4d. ;
1831, 445., &c. ; making the highest price during the
ten years 465. 3d., and the lowest 28s, certainly a con-
siderable degree of fluctuation. He resisted going into
Committee for these reasons, and. because he thought
the repeal of the Corn-laws would be inimical to
all the best interests of the country.
Mr. GROTE and several others rose at the same time
—the ethers having given way,
Mr. GROTE said, the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down had spoken very warmly in denouncing
the sordid and selfish principles of those who supported
the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton. Considering that the Honourable
Gentleman was defending a law which raised the price
of food to every man in the community, and that it put
money in the pockets of the landlords—(Cheers)—he
did not think the charge should have proceeded from
him.--(Cheers.) The epithets sordid and. selfish could,
with more justice be applied to those defending these
laws. He had no doubt that his Hon. Friend would
be beat by a considerable majority, but the question
would not be set at rest ; other and better reasons mustbe
given for the maintenance of these laws than any he
had yet heard. They had never yet heard any one de-
fending
the Corn-laws attempt to show the good effects
which they had had on the cause of the farmers. The
Hon. Gentleman said he liked the present system
because it protected the grower against low prices, and
' the consumer against high prices. Now did the re-
turns on the table of the House show that it had done
either the one or the other ? The Hon. Gentleman
said thas the price of wheat a short time ago was
85s.—certainly a very high price ; a few years ago it
was at 36L—certainly a very low price ; where, then,
was the protection against either high or low prices?
He never esteemed this question of so much importance
as, after hearing the speeches of Gentlemen connected
with the agricultural interests, because they represented
that, if we admitted foreign corn, an almost unbounded
quantity of land would go out of cultivation, and that
the misery and distress of the agricultural interest
would be extreme, and they said moreover that the
whole of the agricultural property now embarked
in the country, was embarked on the faith of
the present Corn-laws, which had the effect of
raising almost double nourishment for every man in the
country. Now, could any reasonable man expect if this
Corn-law had this effect that it could be either stable
or permanent ?—(Hear, hear.) If that were the case,
we should be reduced to the melancholy option, of
either imposing on the community this tax, or of
ruining all the farmers and growers of the land. If this
were the case the conclusion which he should come to
would be that the Corn-laws were founded upon prin-
ciples altogether untenable in practice, and that it
would be our imperative duty to desist from so calami-
tous a policy, and to abstain from encouraging
the investment of further agricultural capital on such
a hazardous and perilous condition.—( Hear.) He
did not believe the statements made as to the ruin
which would be produced to the agriculturists if the
Corn-laws were repealed.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
that the mischievous consequences to them would be far
less than they apprehended, but he would put it to
their reasoning and understanding, whether they were
likely to recommend the Corn-laws to the approbation
of the community by using arguments which only tended
to exaggerate the extent of the loss which it would in-
flict upon them ?—( Hear, hear.) It was not disputed
that the effect of the Corn-laws was to raise the price
of bread. This, in the farmers' language, was called
protection—in he language of the consumer, it was
called the imposition of a tax for the benefit
of an exclusive class.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He
had heard it argued, and with very great astonishment,
upon the ground that it was not only a question of the
landlord or of the farmer, but a question of the labourer
—a question in which the interests of the labouring
classes of the community, was justly concerned in
having a high price of corn, in preference to a low
price, He was very glad this question had been
brought to this distinct issue. He agreed with the Hon.
Member for the Nerth Riding of Yorkshire in his re-
mark last night, that on this matter the experience of
the labourer himself was better titan any man's theory,
and as he knew these debates would be road by artizans
and a great number of the operative classes, persons
;would have an opportunity of comparing, from their
own feelings and experience, which side of the House
took the beet view of their condition and prospects.
In 1835, the price of wheat was only 365. per quaftar,
In Dec. 1838 it was 78s. How many of the artizans and
journeymen in the metropolis would agree with Hon.
Members opposite, that there had been anything
like a rise in their wages since that period adequate to
the difference between 365. and 785., and that they
were now able to command the same comforts and
necessaries of life as they were at that time ?—( Hear,
hear.) This was a question which came home to the
recollection and feeling of every artisan, and he would
be able to test it by reference to his own household
book and expenses. He had made many inquiries, but
could not find that there had been any rise in the wages
of any class of artisans in the slightest degree equivalent
to so great a difference in the price of bread—(Hear,
hear)—and be was convinced that where there had
been any rise, it had been an exception, and not the
general rule. With regard to the interest which it
was alleged the labouring classes had in a high price*
of provisions in preference to a low price, he
should have thought that the history and expe-
rience of the last twenty-five or thirty years of
this country would have been sufficient to satisfy
every one, that the very reverse of this was the case.
Let them look at the price of corn from the year 1795
to 1800, and let them refer to the history of that time.
Was it not at that time, that all the great and grievous
abuses of the management of the poor had their com-
mencement ?—(Hear, hear.) \Vas it not at that time
that the fatal allowance system, under which the country
groaned till the passing of the Peer-law Amendment
Act had its rise, and did it not rise out of the extraordi-
nary rise in the price of bread—(Hear, hear)—and the
unwillingness of the farmers to raise the wages of the
poor adequate to that rise in the price ?--(Hear, hear.)
If Gentlemen would cast their eyes over the publica-
tions of that time, they would find it incorrect to assert
that the working classes derived any benefit from the
high prie of bread ; they would find that propositioxis
of all kinds were made in the House of Commons with