The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-09 00:00:00

ling to give up all their claims to protection ii order that the great,
the noble system of freedom of trade might be generally recognised.
—(Hear) He beleved that they should be able to prove, by
evidenc that the agriculturists were in possession of
much greater protecction than they were at all aware of,
their ignorance of this subject could be established by the evidence
of incontrovertible facts. The great cheapness in foreign
countries arises from there being no vent for the small
surplus produce. That vent would be given by the repeal
of the Corn laws in this country, and the buoyancy
and elevation which would be consequently given to manufactures
would more than compensate for any depression which might take
place. Under the most favourable circumstances for production
the utmost extent of importation that would probably take
place would not exceed two millions and a half of quarters
annually, and this surplus would be more than compen-
sated for lay the increased consumption which would take
place consequent upon the increased manufacturing pros.
perity. Lord Melbourne had said everything that could be ex-
pected from him, considering his situation; and the facts:introduced
to his notice could not fail to produce an effect on his mind.
Mr. EWART heard with satisfaction that the Prime Minister had
received the Deputation with that attention which its great
inm,ortance demanded. Any Prime Minister who nould not
so receive a deputation of such a character would be un-
worthy of treading in the footsteps of his great predeus.
sors, or of wielding the destinies of this mighty nation.
To such a deputation Pitt would have paid attention; even Lord
Liverpool did pay great attention to one such: Great Tory
thorigli he was, he always was a friend of the people, by being
a strenuous enemy to the Corn-laws. He trusted that
the intelligent landowners would come forward to the relief
of t! e Eceo ian Squires, and lead them to the knowledge
that the rei.eal of the Corn-laws—that the pure principles of free
trade was the only way to make the agricultural interest flourish.
By the agitation of the question of slavery, West India property
was depreciated from year to year; so also if they did not
obtain repeal of the Corn .laws, the agitation of the question from
year to year, which now would be inevitable, would far more de-
preciate the landed interest than the immediate repeal of the
Corn-laws. Emancipate the land from what was falsely
called protection, and It would inevitably thrive—continue it in
its unnatural state, and it must flag. Lord Melbourne had
been told that they were not wishing for free trade themselves
alone, but they wished to obtain it for all.
Mr. WEIR said Glasgow wished for and would take nothing else
than a total repeal of these laws. The landed interest ought to
know that this was no transient feeling, but one long thought of
and now calmly persevered in. He and his colleague had brought
up a pet;ii.n from Glasgow signed by 4,300 persons. In 1534
Glasgow and suburbs sent up a petition signed by 60,000 persons.
The present one was confined to the city alone, which accounted
for the different numbers. The softer sex in Scotland very sel
dom indeed put themselves forward out of their own legiti-
mate and more natural duties, but they fult so much
upon tho present question, that: he war advised that the joiners,
openers, winders, and tambourers, and others engaged in the muslin
trade of Glasgow, were about to petition, and as there were some
Hon. Members present, he hoped their gallantry would induce them
to support the prayer of the fair sex.
Sir J. STRICKLAND—It would have given him great pleasure to
have supported the prayer of the petition from the ladies of Glas-
gow ; but according to the present practice of receiving peti.
Lions, lie was prevented from saying one word in support of a
prayer of such an interesting nature. But now they were com-
pelled to disoblige their constituents on many occasions.—(Hear.)
Although it might not be necessary that discussions should extend
to the length which they have formerly done, he was convinced
that some intermediate steps might have been adopted. He could
not help saying a few words on this great and important question,
and perhaps he ought to apologise that his zeal had brought him
here yesterday before a general invitation to Members of Parliament
had been given—(Hear, hear)—but he was an old worker in the
vinpard. He was entirely a landed proprietor.—(Hear, hear.)
Although he was the representative of the great mercantile in.
terests of the West Riding of Yorkshire, the opinions which he en.
tertained on the question of the Corn-laws were taken up many
years before he had even the most distant notion that he should ever
be placed in that proud situation. If proof of his sincerity were wanted
he might refer to a document which he published many years ago.
In 1825 he was: invited by a number of agriculturists to take the
chair at a meeting which was called for the purpose of supporting
the Corn-laws, but he refused, stating that he was decidedly op-
posed to their views, and even published a short letter, stating that
they were blind to their own interest, and that it would ultimately
be found that the Corn-laws were not to their advantage. Before
the question was brought before the House on Tuesday week there
were many matters deserving of the most serious consideration. Ile
was as zealous as any man that all restrictions on commerce should
cease, and was therefore glad to see the position which had been
taken by the Delegates—that they wanted no protection for them.
selves, whilst they were willing to give none to others. lie was glad to
find them advocating the general freedom of trade, that things might
take their natural course, and that England should be free from any
monopoly whatev:r.—(Hear) If they had fallen short of that—if
they had not shown their general desire for free trade altogether,
they would have taken the argument out of their own hands
and placed it in the hands of their opponents. At the same time,
while he admitted that they ought not to look for restrictions, Dr.
Bowring had alluded to a subject of great importance—the necessity of
taxation for the purpose of raising the revenue. It appeared to him
that a tax on one part of the community for the benefit of another,
was the grossest injustice, a fradulent and immoral act—(llear, hear)
and he wished to impress .on them the maxim of Mr. Fox, that
. . .

that which Is morally wrong cannot ho politically right."—
(Hear, hear.) In a country like this there must be taxation,
and if it should be found necessary that the importation
of corn should be subject to a Custom-house tax, he did not sec why
it should not be taxed as well as any thing else—should be taxed for
the purpose of raising the revenue, but not for the purposes of pro-
tection. Now, as to the mode in which the question was to be
supported in the House of Commons when brought forward by Mr.
Villiers.—(Hear, hear.) The present demand, he believed was,
that evidence might be given at the bar of the House of
Commons; but then came the important question, whether in
the present constitution of the House of Commons, and con-
sidering the majorities that existed there, it was possible to
carry that question. The next consideration for them was what,
according to common discretion, they ought to do, and what they
ought to be prepared to do.—(Hear.) _

Mr. E. BAINES, junior, believed that, on the part of the
towns of Leeds and Halifax, and of the West Riding
of Yorkshire generally, he might state their demand was for a total
and immediate repeal of the Corn.laws.—(Hear, hear.) They were
convinced that that was what would most tend towards the general
prosperity of the nation ; and it was his (Mr. Baines') conviction that
the abolition of all duties of this:nature would raise the prosperity
of this country to a far higher pitch than it had hitherto attained.
Ile wished to make an observation upon what Sir George Strickland
had said relative to there being a duty on corn for the purposes of
the revenue. Sir George strickland was an old friend of
free trade in corn, and had published his *pinion on this
subject many years before he came into Parliament, or
was connected with any manufacturing community, and was
himself solely dependent on land. He (Mr. B.) ventured to ex.
press a different opinion from his Hon. Representative on the
subject of the revenue in the importation of foreign corn; and
begged to point out this great difference between taxes on corn and
on most other commodities : while a:tax:on tea, coffee, and sugar raised
the price of Ithearticles which were imported or a tax on corn had
this additional serious effect, that it rose the price also of the
whole of the same commodity grown in this country.—(Hear,
hear.) It was not merely a tax on one or two or three roil-
lions quarters of foreign grain annually imported into this coun.
try, but it was a tax on the whole of the twenty millions quar-
ters of wheat, or fifty millions quarters of all other grain grown
in this country. There could be but one price for the article in
this country, and if that price was raised by a tax on the quantity im-
ported, it would be a tax to the same extent on all the corn grown in
this country. That was a protection to the agriculturists which,
as Mr. Walmsley would show, extended to a verylarge amount.
Mr. Walmesley had stated to Lord Melbourne that the average
expenses attending the importation of wheat from the North of
Europe to this country was between nine and ten shillings per
quarter ; and that the average cost, in addition to that of bringing
corn from the soil on which it grew upon the borders of the Vistula
to Dantzic, the port of exportation, was an additional ten shillings per
quarter. Now the greater part of the British agriculturists had
their market at their own doors, and dispofed of their commodity
themselves without incurring the expence of a factor. These causes
would produce a permanent protection to the British farmer; of which
he could not, from the nature of things, he deprived. He (Mr. Baines)
begged leave to express his conviction against any duty on foreign corn
for the purpose of raising a revenue.—(Hear). lie had at one time
been of opinion that such a tax would have been desirable. But
after reflecting more deeply upon the subject, he had come to the
conclu•ion—taking into consideration the amazing extent
to which such a tax went in raising the price of Corn
in this country—(Hear)—that it was for the great, permanent
interest of this country—including the landowners themselves—that
the trade in corn should be as free as the waters of the ocean or the
air we breath.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN then read the resolution as it had been moved by
Mr. Sturge and seconded by Dr. Bowring.
Mr. E. BAINES, Jun., objected that it contained terms expressing
the conviction of the Delegates that the abolition of the Corn-laws was
' supported by the wealth, the numbers, the intelligence of the country.
' a conviction for which lie himself confessed that he did not possess
any evidence. He proposed therefore to omit those words.
While the Delegates were waiting to hear what Dr. Bowring had
to say to the proposition, the Learned Doctor having left the room.
The 01411101 AM said he wished it to be known, that notwithstand-
ing what had been promulgated by Earl Fitzwilliam, the delegates
did not intend to abandon their instructions, which were to go for
the "total" as well as the " immediate" repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. ASHWORTH observed that he had pressed that point to the
utmost with Lord Melbourne, representing that a fixed duty would
be a fixed injustice, to whatever extent it went.—(Hear, hear.)
Dr. BOWRI NG having re-entered the room, he said that he, for one,
believed the bulk of the numbers of the wealth and of the intelli-
gence of the country was against the Corn-laws ; wherefore he was
for the resolution as it stood.
Mr. BROOK said he thought it was important that they should not
' try to make out too good a case, and he therefore concurred in Mr.
' Baines suggestion.
Mr. EWART said that though he believed the preponderance of
numbers and of intelligence was against the Corn.laws, he did not
see the necessity of stating their conviction on that point, but rather
considered that they ought to state their own opinions fairly and
fully, and appeal to the country.—( Hear, hear.)
It was agreed that the words objected to by Mr. Baines should
be struck out, and the resolution, as amended was passed.
Mr. G. WOOD—In consequence, gentlemen, of having
made h seen
ere a
report in the public papers, of comments having been
upon what I said on Tuesday night, to the effect that what I then
said would have an injurious effect on the object of the Delegates,
I have waited on you for the purpose of hearing on what grounds
it was that you thought I had unfortunately made that mistake. I
should be very glad to hear any explanation.
The CHAI RM I N—lt would be best for the Hon. Gentleman to refer
to the debates in the public papers, which caused the impression
that was produced on the minds of the gentlemen wino attend here.
I understand a similar impression was created out of doors.—(Hear.)
mr. G. NV. WODD-13t t :‘ou leave me in the dirk as to the particu-
lar circumstance which gave rise to that impression, and it is upon
those grounds that I should be glad to hear your explanation.
Mr. Bitootces, of Huddersfield—lf the Hon. Member would refer
to those parts of his speech so loudly cheered by Sir It. Peel, I think
he would be able to solve the difficulty.--(Loud cries of " Hear.")
The CHAIRMAN-1 had not the pleasure of hearing the Hon.
Baronet speak, and therefore I cannot tell what effect may have
been produced in the House by it, but I had the pain of hearing Sir
Robert Peel's reply to it, and noticed that the Right Hon. Baronet's
. speech was cheered by all those parties whom we consider as 01)1,0-