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

elinion, could act he had ever yet heard propounded,
because he considered that the Corn-laws, as they at
present stood, afforded in times of adversity a price
e hich the consumer could not fairly complain of, and also
in times of plenty, yielded a fair remuneration to
the farmer. He did not complain of the course
adopted by the Honourable Member who had brought
forward this motion, but he complained, and he thought
title agriculturists had a right to complain, of the con•
duet of her Majesty's Ministers. He had heard only
a short time ago the Noble Lord the Secretary
~r State for the Home Department, state in that
House that, ever since the formation of the Whig
Cabia,;et, under Earl Grey, the question of the Corn-
!ewe was an open question in the Cabinet. It was ten
rears since Lord Grey first formed his Administration,
eild this was the first time the House had ever heard
that statement.—(Hear, hear.) And though he did
Lot doubt the sincer;ty of the Noble Lord in making
that statement, yet it was A very extraordinary
I circumstance that Earl Ripon, who at one time
`) Leld the office of President of the Board of Trade,
Iwho was instrumental in introducing into that House
t the Corn-law in 1815, had declared that he did not un-
)eerstand the Cabinet of Earl Grey to have been formed
co ,those principles ; and also that another Noble Lord,
with eery different views, but whose object had also
keen to rnPdifY itr repeal the Coin-laws) had declared
fiat he did not understand Earl Grey''.` Cabinet to
Lave been formed on any such principle....!ar.)
Arguments in support of the repeal of these laws had
been attempted to be drawn from the suffering state of
1 the band-loom weavers, but he maintained that if the corn-
I iws were repealed the agricultural labourers would be re-
euced to a worse state. What was the cause of the hand-
-1 ioen weavers becoming distressed ? not the withdrawal
I of protection from our manufactures, but the application
of machinery instead of manual labour to production, by
i which means the master manufacturers were able to
r nlize from 100 to 120 per cent. on their capital. If
they were to apply the same principle to agriculture, and
weie to enable him by some invention to grow twelve
quarters of wheat onland which now only produced three
--if they enabled him to cultivate a farm on which
he was now obliged to maintain twenty horses and
twenty labourers, with only one horse and one la-
bourer, then indeed some analogy might be made
1 etween the manufacturers and the agriculturists.
But as long as the agriculturist was satisfied with the
low rate of profit he now had, and as long as it was con-
s'dered expedient to extend protection to our manufac-
tarers, he contended that the protection afforded to
t griculture was not greater than that afforded to the
taanufacturers. The agriculturist had greater diffi-
-1 culties to contend with than the manufacturer. The
i ianufecturer could at all times limit his supply to the
Ic emend of the market, and the agriculturist was not
caabled to compete with him on those terms. The
agriculturist was dependent not only on the vicissitudes
( I the seasons in this, but on the vicissitudes of the
seasons in other countries. He did not like to refer
!,-) past speeches of Members of that House, but he would
I j let mention that whenever in debate an attempt wasmade
to draw an analogy between agriculture and manuftc-
hre, Mr. Huskisson stated that the analogy was sly-
thing but logical. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
President of the Board of Trade, disputed the posit on
that the agriculturists had greater burdens to bear e an
t ie manufacturers ; but he would allude to those b tr-
d ens which agriculturists had been subject to by B lls
that had passed through that House, by which lc :al ,
t ixes amounted to more than the rent of land. In the
county he represented the agriculturists were bound to
maintain to an enormous extent drainage, embankments,
a id, in addition to this, they had a larger portion of
poors' rates, highway rates, and county rates, than the
manufacturers had. In 1833 the poor rates in
England and Wales amounted to 8,606,5011. The
families,, according to the population returns, em-
poyed in agriculture in England and Wales,
eamunted to 834,000. The families employed in
t. ades and manufactures amounted to 1,206,000.
and all the other families amounted to 848,000.
Ile found that the land alone contrihuted to the poor-
rites out of 8,606,5011., no less a sum than 5,434,8001.
--(Hear, hear.) He found that manorial rights (as we
understood) contributed about 200,000 ; that dwell-
irgehouses contributed 2,605,267/. ; and that mills and
f_stories contributed only 352,479.—(Hear, hear,hear.)
So that the proportion which the land bore was
5 500,0004 while the mills and factories, adding to them
ad the dwelling-houses, amounted to 2,900,0001. But
if' they took the fair calculation, and gave half the houses
to agriculturists, and the other half to mills and fac-
tories, they would find that persons concerned in agri-
e ilture contributed towards the support of the poor
6,936,0001,. whereas those concerned in manufactures
contributed only 1,670,0001.—(Hear, hear.) Taking
all the statements of the Honourable Member for Wol-
verhampton to be true (and not being acquainted with
manufactures he would admit they were) ad-
mitting that manufactures were in a de-
clining state, and that a successful competi-
tion was curried on by foreign manufactures, he
would ask was that a reason why they should repeal the
Corn-laws and remove all restrictions on trade. The
Pon. Member for Wolverhampton, if all his statements
were true, ought to have asked the House to go into a
Committee to review the whole system of taxation.
I.' they depressed the agricultural labourer and the yeo-
man, they would compel that part of the population to
sabsist on coarser food and to wear coarser and more
dbarable apparel. Ho would now allude to an argument
t iat had been adduced last night by the Hon. Member
for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir G. Strickland),
a id he was sorry that the Hon. Baronet was not in his 1
place, because he had heard with pain those allusions j
w:tich he made to the landowners of England. If that
Hon. Baronet chose to apply those allusions to himself
or to any particular persons with whom he was ac-
quainted, be was perfectly welcome to give him-
s,lf and his friends the benefit of those expressions ;
but he denied, so far as he was acquainted with the
landlords of England, that those unmerited and unjust
imputations which had been heaped on them applied to
teat body—(Hear, hear)—and he was convinced there
was not a tenant in the county which he had the
honour to represent who did not reject the observations
of the Hon. Baronet with indignation and scorn. The
flop. Baronet had laboured to show that this was
purely a landlord's question, and that the labourer
ield the occupier were in no degree benefited by the
C irn-laws. That it was a landlord's question to a cer-
tain extent he admitted, but that it was purely a land-
lerd's question he most positively denied. It was a ques-
tion that affected the small more than the great owner
of land—that affected the occupier of a few acres
more than the occupier of a large number of acres.
( Hear, hear. hear.) But he was convinced

that the lower they descended in the scale
of those who were employed in the cultivation of
the soil, and who derived their support from the good
cultivation of it, the more intense would their suffer-
! ings be by the repeal. He did not wish to argue the
question on the principle of supporting one interest
't al )re than another, but he should be most unwilling to
elathange the habits of our bold and independent
I p Llsantry for those of the wretched, squalid, and
ii liserable population of the large manufacturing towns.
--(Derisive cheers from the Members for the manufac-
-1 t.Aring communities.) To show that it was not a land-
lord's but a tenant's question, he begged leave to refer
to a calculation which he held in his hand, by which he
1 t. ought he would be able to shew that the poorer
i soils of this country—and he knew that the land in the
et.uo ty he represented never could be brought into culti
I •
L It:on even by anyof the best systems adopted in Scotland
1 --the calculation he was about to allude to was solely with
reference tothe tillage and produce of four acres of arable
i land on the most improved system of management. He
deft out entirely the profit derived from the growth of
t corn; he took the price of wheat at 50s. a quarter,
v, hicb was about the average price since the present
13111 came into operation, he took the price of barley at
Sjs. a quarter ; a quantity of wheat produced per
alre at three quarters ; the quantity of barley Ipva,,
!d iced at four and a half quarters per acre ; and on these
facts he begged to state that the first crop to be pro-
, d iced was turnips, the second barley, the third clover,
1 and the fourth wheat. The outlay, including the rent

of land, to produce a crop of turnips on this land (and
1 ho had this from one of the most intelligent agriculturists
, in England) would amount to no less than 6/.43.9d. an acre.
:1 'l'h.e value of the crop was 2/. 10s. ; the expense of pre-
i paring the land for the reception of barley was 41. 7s. 6d.,
!, the value of the produce 6/. 15s. ; the expense for
i ciover was 2L lOs. 6d. ; the expense for a wheat crop
'' was 5/. 7s. 31, value of the produce 8/. Bs. During
iCle whole period of that four years, the expense upon
that acre of land amounted to 19/. 18s., while the value
, of the produce amounted to no more than 201. Ss.,
leaving a profit of only ss. for the whole four years ;
! tl,e landlord during that period getting four guineas,
I a bile the expense laid out upon the land amounted to
15/. 6s. That statement clearly proved that
ISN here the remunerating profit was so small
! upon such lands, they inevitably would be
thrown out of cultivation if foreign corn were admitted
I
1 into this country. The only way in which the farmer
ti was enabled to cultivate that land was that he kept
u)on it a large quantity of sheep and cattle—he was
?, unable to supply the consumer with corn—but he was
! e ,allled to supply this immense metropolis with butchers
meat, and the manufacturers themselves with the
1 coarsest species of wool. If Hon. Gentlemen would take
p :ins to make themselves a little acquainted with agri-
, cultural affairs, as they evidently had done with respect
to the manufacturing interest, they would find that it
i
would be imposssible to maintain one-tenth of the cattle
I n.rm in this country upon the lands, unless cultivated in
the manner he had stated. In the county which he had
1 ti e honour to represent there was raised annually no less
t"n 2,700,000 sheep, no small portion of which never
r ecved any of what was called natural pasturage. In
eidernecessarily
to maintain the land in a proper state, they must
I the lsarly
have a succession of crops : if the wheat and
t county, i t barley
crops were taken from the lands in that
would be perfectly impossible for them to get
a good and proper supply of butcher meat ; he had not
hard any one attempt to provide a remedy for the impe.. '
verished state to which the agricultural labouring 1P o u la-
I ton would be reduced, would inevitably have beeor 03duced,
•

&'r Wgir"."-'-"------•APFR
CAr*,_....l :,',.j..,..=.\;fi.-•k,„
.v.t.:•-if.rw,.
~c.... . `,... • A
f--

/1 ~
/~/^
t'• 1'

~,.
:~

~.