The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-16 00:00:00

COUNTY RATE.

Mr. F. MAULE moved for a return of the county rate in
each county in England and Wales for the maintenance of the
prisons, for 1536, 1837, and 1838.--Ordered.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Ireland, praying
for an equalization of political rights with England.
About a Quarter to Five, Nlr. Palmer, Deputy Usher of the
Black Rod, summoned the House to hear the Royal Assent
given in the House of Peers to several Bills (for which see
Lords' report).
On the return of the SrzAiczu,
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Lord DUNGANNON postponed his motion respecting
Ma)nooth College. till after the Easter recess.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he should not bring for-
ward his motion with respect to Education inTrinity College, till
after the Easter recess.—(Hear, hear).
11r. WARD gave notice, that on Thursday next he would
bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Common Sewers.
FACTORIES.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS begged to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for the Home Department, what arrangement he in-
tended to make respecting the Factory Bill, if he was not able
to bring it on on Monday next ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL feared that he should be obliged to
postpone the measure till after the recess.
NORTH AMERICAN BOUNDARY.

Sir S. CANNING begged to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received
any information from Washington as to the course the General
Government of the United States meant to take in consequence
of the transactions that had lately taken place on the frontier.
He also wished to know whether the negociations which had
been going on with respect to the disputed territory were likely
to be brought to a speedy determination.
Lord PALMERSTON had received very little information
on the subject from Washington. The circumstances were only
generally known, but the details had not yet reached that place.
Sir S. CANNING—What was the date?
Lord PALMERSTON—The information had reached them
a few days ago by the Great Western steam-ship. The nego-
ciations with respect to the boundary question were still going
on, and he believed that the best feeling existed on the
subject on the part of the American Government.
COUNTY COURTS.

Mr. MILES would wish to ask the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tary foe the Home Department, a question. It would be in the
recollection of the House that that Noble Lord had proposed to
bring in Bills altering the entire jurisdiction of the counties.
He had prop Jsed bringing in a County Courts Bill, having
already brought in a District Court Bill. The Noble Lord
had also announced his intention to bring in a Bill
giving to the Magistrates in Petty Sessions summary jurisdiction
in cases of petty larceny. As these measures would have a great
effect on the county rates, he wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether it was his intention to lay these two Bills before the
House previous to the holidays ?
Lord JOHNN RUSSELL said that the Small Debts Bill
was already in the hands of the printer, and would most likely be
delivered to Hon. Members to morrow. The Petty Sessions
Bill was nearly ready, and he trusted it would be in the hands
of Members the beginning of the following week.
SUPREME COURT AND PRISONS BILLS
(SCOTLAND).
Sir GEORGE CLERK wished to ask the Noble Lord what
was his intention relative to the Orders of the Day on the Su-
preme Court (Scotland) Bill, and on the Prisons Bill?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that he
would postpone the consideration of those Bills to Monday
se'nnight.
CORN-LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
_ _

On the Order of the Day for the adjouraed debate on the
motion for the House going into Committee for the considera-
tion of the Corn-laws,
Mr. HUME said that although the debate had already
extended over four days, yet he did not believe if the
national importance of the subject was considered as it
ought to be considered, that too much time had been
wasted on this subject. If any questions had more particularly
occupied his attention since he had been a Member of that
House those questions were the question of a free trade in
corn, and of a free trade in every article of consumption.
The other point which had occupied his attention was the re-
duction of the expenses corresponding to the change that had
taken place at the conclusion of the war. He had always
raised his voice for a reduction of the enormous expenses
that had been brought on by the war. He was anxious to im-
press upon the House the necessity of returning to that sober
state which they were in before the war, in order that
the peqple- at large might benefit by the change from
war to peacs. Unfortunately the House of Com-
mons had taken a different view. He considered that
the most fatal step of all which they had taken was passing
the Corn-laws in 1815. If they had adopted that course
which wisdom and policy pointed out the landed proprietors,
whose property had increased in value during the wars, and
whose rents had risen nearly double in amount, would
have pursued a very different course. During the wars
the profits of trade had been enormous, and the means
of purchasing had been doubled and trebled in price,
In many cases money was amply sufficient, and all parties seemed
in prosperity. The only party who suffered was the public as a
body, who were charged with the enormous debt. The Corn-
laws had passed to limit the amount of food, and therefore it was
that he had always objected to them. What had been the re-
sult i,f the laws passed in 1815 ? Why, although those laws
had been passed avowedly with the view of securing steadiness
of price in corn, and avowedly with the view of protecting
the farmers and labourers, their only effect had been to keep
up high rents and benefit the landed proprietors.—( Hear.)
This had been called a labourer's question, but it was a mea-
sure which separated the community into two classes—the
one benefited by the increased rent of land—the rest subsist-
ing on what they derived from capital, from manufactures,
from commerce. It was unjust, inasfar as it taxed a large pro-
portion of the people for a benefit of a few—it was unjust, in-
agar as it prevented the free application of capital to
the means by which employment might be given in this
country, and it thus tended to lessen the power of the
state by diminishing the means of paying the taxes. If ever
there was a question more easy of solution than any other it was
this :—that while the interest of the debt had increased from
nine millions and a half to thirty millions at the close of the
war—instead of contriving means by which the industry of
the country might make these taxes light to the bulk of the
people they actually added, in the form of Corn-laws, an addi-
tional tax, equal to half the interest of the national debt. It
was his object to show that he was not alone in the view which
he had taken, but that every individual who wasof eminence as
a political economist, would be found to bear out this opinion,
and which be had always endeavoured to explain to the House.
For twenty years he (Mr. Hume) had on various occasions
brought this subject before the House. Now greater distress
existed at the present time than perhaps at any former period.
Every object for which the present Corn-laws had been passed
had failed, and the farmers and their labourers, whom it
was intended to protect, had been injured by its opera-
tion. The House had been engaged in considering the
question of agricultural distress more than any other subject.
He held in his hand the proceedings of six Agricultural Com-
mittee. The first was in 16120, a few years after the passing of
the present law, restricting the importation of wheat till it
reached 80s., amounting to an absolute prohibition, and that
Committee had stated that since the Act was passed, the dif-
ference was so great between Continental and British corn as to
be double that price. The Committee of 1821 bad made a re-
port upon the subject, which contained a very important para-
graph—and let it be recollected that this Committee consisted
entirely of agricultural gentlemen—the Committee stated
that the effect of the Corn-laws of 1815 was at one time to
make prices very high, at another to reduce them very low—
to agravate the evils of scarcity, and to increase
the pressure caused by superabundance.—( Hear, hear.)
In 17 months, between January 1816 and June 1817, the price
of wheat varied from 535. Id. to 112 s. 7d.—equal to 111 per•
cent.—in three months from June to September 1817, the price
varied from 112 s. 7d. to 74s—a decrease of 51 per cent.
Had fluctuations so rapid and so extensive existed in any other
commodities of universal supply in any other country ?—( Hear,
hear.) In Holland, where till lately there had been no Corn-
law, the price had never varied more than 40 per cent—gene-
rally not more than 15 per cent. In England, from 1770 to
1793, the variation was seldom more than 30 per cent.—never
except in one year of scarcity did the difference amount to 56
per cent. In 1833, a gentleman had shown to the Committee
the fluctuations during the war, from 1793 to 1814.
Every body knew that the variations depended upon the cessation
of war ; but the variations had existed notwithstanding the laws
of 1815 and 1828. From 1817 to 1828 the variation amounted
to no less than 143 per cent.: he was not speaking from infor-
mation now, he was speaking from documents which were on
the table of the House ; but from that time down to the present
the variations had amounted to as much as 211 per cent. He
held in his hands returns showing that the difference of price
between France and England, since 1819 to the present
year, was in favour of France to the amount of 43
per cent. In many places the difference was 100 per cent., in
other places 80 per cent., but the average was 43 per cent.
upon the whole. Why, then, should Gentlemen resist the mo-
tion, and say that steady prices ought to be kept up? That
only showed what would be alleged by those gentlemen
who deviated from principle. He had shown the fluctuations
and the situations of the farmers—te them ruination and beg-
gary was the result of the laws, as was shown by the Commit-
tees of 1830, 1831, 1832, and 1836—a1l showed the same re-
sult, that the agricultural interest was in those years in great
distress. He thought it but justice to state, that this protective
system first began with the manufacturers, and Adam Smith
had expressed his opinion as to the short-sighted policy of this
system. Adam Smith had said it must be evidently to the interest
of the nation to buy in the cheapest market possible—that this
proposition would have been universally admitted, had it not
been for the interested sophistry of those who were interested
in confining the consumption to manufactures. What Adam
Smith says with regard to the manufacturers, applies to the
present condition of the landed interest. They had followed
the example set by the manufacturers, thinking to reap advan-• tage from it, but they had failed. This opinion of Adam Smith's
struck him to be a self-interested proposition. The Noble Lord,
the Member for Stroud, had stated one or two instances last
night ; and he would state another, which appeared to him to
bear on this subject, with a view to showing that the present
system was injurious to the landed interest. Adam Smith had
denounced the policy of encouraging agriculture by the destruc-
tion of manufactures—that policy he (Mr. —Hume) now ar-
raigned.—(Hear, hear.) The country had been losers by
hat policy. Adam Smith said that about fifty years be-
fore his time, the counties in the neighbourhood of London
had petitioned Parliament not to agree to any Bills for opening
turnpike roads to distant parts of this country, because on ac-
count of the cheapness of labour those counties would supply
the London market at a cheaper rate, and the petitioners would
be ruined. Turnpike roads, however, had been opened, and
these disastrous consequences had not followed ; on the con-
trary, rents had risen and cultivation improved ever since that
time : and he contended that such would be the result in this
country if the present laws were repealed, and the fears of the
landed interest on this head were as unfounded as the fears of the
persons referred to had been. The manufacturers were
anxious to press upon the House the necessity of making
changes in the present law, and he thought the House had acted
most unjustly and unwisely in refusing to give them the opportu-
nity which they had asked of proving their case : they bad
come before the House with clean hands, and their requests
therefore ought to be taken into consideration. He (Mr.
Hume) was against restrictions upon any article, and more es-
pecially upon an article of such vast importance as corn. He
wished to make one observation which deserved the attention
of the House—that from the passing of the Jaw in 1815 they
might date the misery and wretchedness of the hand-loom
weavers, for the industry of that class had been so undersold
in other places that it was impossible for them to meet the
competition of other countries. Gentlemen had spoken again
and again of the necessity of employing agricultural labourers,
but they had not taken into account the immense increase in
the population of this country, and that that increase had taken
place almost entirely in the manufacturing districts. While the
population was thus increasing, they were adopting the means
of starving it, and of driving it to leave the country. It ap-
peared from the population returns that in 1790 the population
of this country was 8,540,000, 1810 it was 10,407,000, in 1830
it was 13,840,000, and it was now estimated at about sixteen
millions, so that from the year 1790 to 1830 the population had

increased 5,300,000. Now he asked how they had been em-
ployed ? In 1811 he found that in every 100 of the population
35 were employed in agriculture ; in 1821 33 were employed in
agriculture ; and in 1831 it was reduced to 28, so that the re-
striction laid on by the Corn-laws, instead of providing for the
employment of the agricultural labourers, had actually lessened
the number employed. In Scotland manual labour was as much
as possible substituted by machinery. Where had the in-
creased population in England been employed? In manu-
factures. So that while stinting and limiting the power
of employing manufacturers, the advocates of the Corn-
laws, were limiting and stinting the supply of food.
He (Mr. Hume) recommended that the doors to industry
should be opened—that food should be rendered cheap—and
thus the people would be happy, instead of starved, as they
had liithertobeen by these laws. For the present detestable mo-
nopoly gave is the few—to the rieh—the power of starving mil-
lions.—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) That was strong
language.—( Hear, hear.) But it was only giving things
their right names.—( Hear, hear.) And it was surprising to
him (Mr. Hume) that those religious gentlemen, who were
so acutely sensible on the subject of the factory children, were
not equally so on the question of the Corn-laws. He held in'
his hand a comparative statement of the population in manu-
facturing and agricultural districts in 1801, in 1811, in 1821,
and 1831. Take Manchester for instance—in 1801 the popu-
lation was 90,399; in the next ten years it increased 2 per
cent. ; the next ten years, 40 per cent. ; the next, 47
per cent. • and in 1831 the population was 227,030.
The population of Bristol had increased from 63,000 to
103,000 ; Dundee from 26,000 to 45,000; Chester had ad-
vanced to 191,000 ; Lancaster from 672,000 to 1,336,000 ;
York from 565,000 to 975,000; thus hail t'ae manufacturing
population increased in the time he specified. But within 30
years the average inci ease of the agricultural population had
been only from 10 to 15 per cent. During the first 10 years
of the 30 Buckingham had increased only 9 per cent, Here-
ford 5, Rutland none, Salop 16, Wilts 5. From 1821 to 1831,
Buckingham had increased only I per cent, Rutland 5, Salop 5,
Wilts 7 ; let them compare that increase with the increase of
30 or 40 per cent, which he had shown had been the moderate
increase of the manufacturing population. But in some manu-
facturing districts the increase had been still pore, the ratio of
the increase in Manchester, within the last 30 years, he had
already given. In Liverpool it had been 101 per cent, in Bir-
mingham 73, in Leeds 99, in Paisley 78, and so on in various other
districts. During the whole time our surplus population had
been maintained by manufactures. The gradual produce of our
population was 500 per day—( Laughter)—and surely it was the
business of the Government that those mouths should be filled,
instead of limiting their provisions, v,hich they did by main-
taining the present Corn-laws. The Honourable Member for
Yorkshire had stated that this country was too highly taxed to
enter into competition with foreign countries. But he would
remind them that if this country were surrounded by a wall of
brass, we should still have the interest of the national debt to
pay out of our own means—that is, if we were honest e^ough—
(Laughter)---and he must say that it was only the landed in-
terest he found who were inclined to meddle with the national
faith entered into by the country with its creditors, always ex-
cepting the Honourable Member for Birmingham—whereas
now it appeared that the value of our exports in 1836 had been
77,932,0001.; in 1837, 84,883,0001.; in 1838, 72.377,0001.; half
of which was paid by the lab 'suers who received wages for their
work in the manufactures exported to that amount. Taking
into consideration the taxes, the labour pai I upon tea, sugar,
beer, spirit, and tobacco, he was sure that out of every pound
;le earned 55., or at least 75., went into the Exchequer. Remem-
bering that our national debt amounted to nearly 1,000,000,000/.
including the annuities, he would ask them was it not of para-
mount importance to take off the shackles of trade, and give
still more extensive employment to the labourers who paid so
much of our taxes? He would have the labourer paid in gold
and silver, and not in rags, he would here remark. —( Laughter. )
Thus they would be employed at high wages and high prices,
which would make a difference of 40 per cent. over the pre-
sent system, to the advantage of the taxes and every depart-
ment of the State. On referring to the important paper read
last night by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, he found that the
English labourer was worse off than those of any other country
in Europe ; in fact, while the latter had had their wages ad-
vancing since 1815, the wages of the English labourer had been
diminishing under the baneful influence of that period.—( Hear,
and ironical cheers.) He deeply regretted that Minister,
should make thi a divided question.—( Hear.) Her Majesty's
Secretary at War, the Secretary for the Home Department
and the President of the Board of Trade, had stated that this
question was one of the utmost importance to the interests of
this country, and yet when they were in the Cabinet the
and their Colleagues could not rgree to it.—(Laughter.)
Elsewhere a distinguished Member of her Majesty's Government
who had a very great influenee over the country, and who also
had very great influence at Court.—(Laughter.) That
distinguished personage had the night before said, as the
reports in the morning papers showed,—" I declare be-
fore God that this is the wildest and the maddest scheme that
ever the imagination of men conceived"—(Cheers from the
Corn law supporters)—" that is to leave the agricultural inte-
rest without protection."—(Cheers.) Now he (Mr. Hume)
had hitherto thought that the wisest and most discreet men had
been selected to carry on the affairs of Government, but the
conclusion from what that high personage had said was that
his colleagues were absolutely wore than madmen.—(Great
laughter.) (He Mr. Hulce) regretted very much that he
could not now produce the evidence that had been taken
three years before by the Commissioners for inquiring, into
the state of the hand-loom weavers ; as that evidence
would havelsupported'allihis opinions ; the returns of death would
show that while the Legislature had the power, it had not the
will to relieve, and that thousands and tens of thousands had
died of famine. The Corn-laws were killing the hand-loom
weavers by inches ; it could be proved that when food was scarce
and employment scanty, the death amongst the populations had
been two to one compared to the deaths in times when food and
employment abounded. It was very fine indeed to talk of our
bold peasantry. Why where were they now ? There was no
agriculturist now better than a pauper.—( Laughter and iropi-
cal cheers.) Since Hon. Gentlemen doubted, he would
prove it. He was a Member of the Committe upstairs last
year. They first proceeded to inquire about Sussex. On the
19th of April, 1837, several labourers were examined before
the Committee. They had all wives and numerous children,
and stated that their wages were, some of them Sc., some of
them Bs. 6d., some of them 75., and one of them lls. 6d. a
week. They stated before the Committee how they distributed
this income, by which they supported themselves, and in all
instances the amount for bread was two-thirds of the whole in-
come. Not believing it possible that people could remain
under such estate of things. he himself visited Wiltshire and
Devonshire very often after that, and found the average wages
there to be 85. a week. Some received 95., others 75., and
the average was Bs. The corn was then at 565. It had since
been 70s. and 80s. ; and he would ask, what increase of wages
had there been to the labourer, to enable him to procure the
"same proportion of bread for his family that he had been able
to procure when the corn was at 565.? It had indeed been
said that wages had been advanced 2s. 6d., but he could
assure the House that that was only in the Northern dis-
tricts. And this was the state of the bold peasantry of Eng-
land. It was an insult so talk of such a thine. There was no
such thing in existence ; and he hoped he should hear no more
of our bold peasantry, because, if a peasantry, in the very next
grade of that to actual starvation, was a bold peasantry,
why then, and then only, was ours a bold peapsntry.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) They were unable to procure the
necessary comforts of life. They actually stated before
the Committee that they never tasted any animal • food
from January to December, and they were absolutely without
the means of procuring necessary clothing. Surely the House
under such circumstance was called, upon to consider why such
a state of things existed. For his own part he believed it to be
on account of the Corn-laws, and that therefore there ought
to be a change in them. The manufacturers of this country as-
serted that by our restrictions corn in every other part was
kept fifty per cent. below the price at which' it was in England,
and that the consequence of that was that the manufacturers
could not produce articles which chiefly required manual labour
at a rate to enable them to compete with foreign markets. In
reference to Ireland, was the peasantry there better off now than
they were in 1815? Why, it it was clear that the system had
been a fleecing system ever since that period. 'There was no
possible way of improving Ireland, but by taking money
there, and encouraging manufacturing in that country with it;
but so long as Ireland was merely enabled to produce the raw
produce, so long would it remain as the Poles were, in po-
verty and wretchedness. The remedy for their state was to
give employment. What were they to do to give employment?
—( Hear.) Why, he would say introduce manufactures into Ire-
land ; and if it were asked where would they sell them, his an-
swer was, that, the wide world would be the market for them. He
had been told that the landed proprietors had particular claims
against an alteration in these laws, in respect of the land-tax.
He wished the House to be undeceived in regard to that. He could
show that no landed interest in Europe was so. lightly taxed as the
landed interest of England. The land tax here amounted .to
not more than 4 or 6 per cent., whereas in France it was very
nearly 40 per cent. In Belgium it varied from 22 to 24 per
cent., and throughout Prussia he believed it to be generally
higher. Therefore he denied that the land here was taxed in
anything like the proportion to the land in other parts of
Europe. Then as to theimnoediate tax—there was not a person,
in the country who did not pay a great deal more taxation than
the landed proprietor. The clamour, therefore, and outcry of
the land being so heavily taxed, was totally unfounded. There
was therefore no plea for sustaining this restriction, ex-
cept, indeed, what had been stated last night, viz., that
the landed interest of this country was strong, and had great
power. If it were true that the landed proprietors were
stroug, and had great power, he would say, let them do jus-
tice.—( Hear, bee...) When he saw only twenty-four men in
another place against 224 who would at all countenance a
change in these measures, or go into a Committee upon them,
or agree that the Corn-law Bill had not answered the object;
what hope, he wouLl ask, was there in this country ?--( Hear,
hear.) They might talk, indeed, of physical force, and
the opposition of force to force, but whowere the parties that
were drawing to that deplorable event ?-44lear, hear. )
He would say, without the fear of contradiction, those
who resisted justice.—( Hear, hear.) If the people Were driven
to despair by hunger, privations, and every thing calculated to
produce dissatisfaction, was it not fair that he (Mr. H.) should
make an appeal to that body, declared by one of themselves only
last night to be a powerful body, that they should be just ?
(Hear, hear.) Ile therefore pressed on Hon. Gentlemen the
necessity of considering the situation in which the country was
placed, and of endeavouring to give some relief to their petitioners.
The Hon. Member then read an extract from the writings of
the late Mr. Cobbett, to the effect that so long as the Corn-
laws!he
existed,
working classes.
there
food
be no
come
in
amelioration
and
wagesn t hew
conditionoodl o
not
fall but would rise, for they did not depend upon the price of
food, but upon the demand for labour. Repeal the Corn-laws,
and they would give more labour to the population, and then
its price must necessarily rise. If any sacrifice was to be made,
it was to be made by the richer class, and not by the poorer.
He would support a total repeal—he had formerly advocated a
fixed duty, but he would pray the House to go into Committee,
and totally repeal all restrictions upon trade, and then he had no
doubt England would rise far above any difficulties she had ye'
seen.

Colonel WOOD and several other Members rose together,
but the Gallant Colonel was caged upon as having first caught
the Speaker's eye. He said he was very anxious to answer a
few of the observations of the Noble Secretary at War, but as
he was not in his place, he would not say more than that he and
his Noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, and
the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, had taken
a very erroneous view of the question. They had said the pre-
sent law was intended to put an end to all fluctuations in prices,
and they read the prices at various times. At the moment he
thought the prices quoted were not correct, and he spoke to the
Right lion. Gentleman, who told him the prices were only
those for the week, when every one knew that the averages
were taken at six weeks, and Mr. Canning's argument, which
had been much misrepresented, was, that the high price of one
week would be balanced by the low price of another. However
every one knew that even the six weeks average did not regulate,
the arrangements of the agriculturist; but this he would say
that there was no agriculturist in the country who would not
say that the Bill of 1828 had made prices less fluctuating than
they had been in any former period. Again, it was said that
these laws had not prevented agricultural distress ; but in those
sears when such distress existed did not every one know that
they were years of great abundance which had brought down
the prices to a very low average, and that in those years there
was no importation whatever, so that the Corn-laws had no-
thing to do with that distress. The Right Hon. President of
the Board of Trade and the Noble Secretary at War argued as if
this was a new law, but it was merely a very great amelioration
of the law of 1815. He perfectly agreed with the Honour-
able Member for Kilkenny, that the Act of 1815
was a complete failure, but that law was the con-

seqence of .a
Committee appointed in 1813, because