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

escaping the increase of wages that would be the result ;_
from that time to the time of peace, the prices of
provisions were extremely high, and during that time the
condition of the agricultural labourer was far worse,
and was greatly deteriorated—it was far worse before that
time and since, showing therefore that when the price of
provisions was high the condition of the labourer was bad.
The result of the high price of provisions was, to cause a
greater number of labourers in the market, and therefore an
increase of the costs of their support. The next point that
I will advert to for the purpose of proving that the agricul-
tural labourer is badly off when provisions are high is, be-
cause it is the moment when their employers extract from
them a greater amount of labour than at any other time. It
is notorious to every person residing in the country
that this is the case, that whenever the price of
food is high, you find a greater number of
labourers are unemployed, and you make better terms
with them than at any other time. Ido not state this ex-
actly upon my own authority, but I will quote the evidence
given before a Committee of this House. I allude, Sir,
to the evidence of a Gentleman of the name of
AI ;lite, who stated, that wishing to enclose a
farm at the latter end of the year of 1812,
he sent for his bailiff; he stated to him that some years
back he had enclosed a farm, and that the cost of thet en-
closure was 3s. an acre. Ile also stated that a neighbour
of his some time afterwards had enclosed a farm at ss. an
acre, and upon asking him what he thought a farm could
be enclosed for at that time, he stated that, as provisions
were high and labour cheap, it could be enclosed at 2s. an acre.
I told him that I had proposed the same plan for another
farm, but which I intended to postpone from the circum-
stance of not being in possession of the whole farm. He re-
quested that I would allow him to do it that season,
as he could do it cheaper, and that a great many
labourers were idle from having little work, in
consequence of those employed doing double work.
I requested him to go on, and he contracted at 6d. per
acre, what I do not think I could have done for Is. 6d.
an acre, in consequence of the fall of provisions." Now that
is the evidence of a person before a Committee of this
House, who was called upon to give evidence as to the
state of agricultural labourers. I have made inquiries at
the places, and I find the evidence correspond with the
fact, that when provisions are high, there is a greater
number of labourers unemployed ; and it is always pos-
sible to extract from them a higher amount of labour.—
( Hear, hear, hear. ) But this is termed a labourer's ques-
tion, and it is said that if the Corn-laws were repealed, a
great number of labourers would be thrown out of employ-
ment. This seems to imply that the Corn-laws arc ne-
cessary for retaining agricultural labourers. I say that
the Corn-laws have not that effect—that the Corn-laws do
not secure employment to the labourer, and that it is an
accident that any labourer is not rendered destitute under
existing circumstances.—(Cries of " Hear. hear.") Now,
Sir, since the Poor-law has been in operation, upwards
of 6,000 families have been assisted to remove from agri-
cultural districts to towns and manufacturing districts, be-
cause they were unable to find labour in their own
county. Upwards of 7,000 persons have got into towns
and manufactories, and those families have done well.
There has also been annually during the last ten or fifteen
years an emigration from this country to the agricultural
parts of our provinces in North America. This, I
think, shows that the Corn-laws as they exist do
not secure to the agricultural labourer a constant
and regular employment, for the worst that could happen
to those labourers, if land were cast out of cultivation, would
be that they would be deprived of employment, and it
appears that when that is the case the labourers are ac-
customed to look to the manufactories, and to the prospe-
rity of the manufacturing districts for employment. Neither
do the Corn-laws secure employment to the labourer,
nor do they secure content to the labourer ; for it seems
that since these Corn-laws have been actually in operation
the agricultural labourers have been more dissatisfied ;
and there has been more disaffection among that class than
ver prevailed at any previous time —( Hear, hear)—
and we find that not only where they pauperise by the cir-
cumstance of the high prices, but the effect of their
being pauperised, was found to render them mose dis-
contented, and to excite a worse feeling towards their
employers in 1830, than had ever been known before.
In 1830, these Corn-laws which are said to be a
protection to productive industry, hal been 15 years in oper-
ation, and I venture to say that in no period of our history w ere
the labourers found to be more wretched or more disaffected.
Sir, but it is said that these lands are kept in cultivation
by means of the Corn-laws, and so give employment to
the labourers ; but I want to know upon what princi-
ple it is that you are to keep those lands in cultiva-
tion for such a purpose, at an acknowledged expense
to the corm-nullity ? Why not apply the same principle to
the working of machinery? You threw many labourers
out of employment by the introduction of your threshing
machines, why not forego the advantage of machinery in order
to give employment to the labourers? Can you point out
one single instance where you have foregone the advantages
of your machinery ? yet can any one doubt for one moment
that that machinery has thrown many labourers out of em-
ployment? I ask, then, upon what principle should we
keep those lands in cultivation for the benefit, the nominal
benefit, of the labourer ? So much, Sir, for the advantage of
the law in giving protection to one class of what is called
productive industry. Sir, I have tables here, showing the
wages of the labouring classes during two years previous
to these Corn-laws being enacted, and two years subse-
quently. In 1829 the average price of wheat
was forty-three shillings. The wages of cotton-spinners
then averaged 31 s. 6d., and he was enabled to command
twenty-three pecks of wheat. In 1828, the average price
was GOs., the wages averaged 345., and the cotton-spinner
was then enabled to command only eighteen pecks. Teo
sticking-makers of Leicester, when the wheat averaged
435., were able to command eight pecks, while it
was at 605., they were able to command only four.
The wages of printers, compositors, and that class, did not
seam to vary much—their wages were 365. at each period,
while the wheat averaged 435., they were able to com-
mand 27 pecks ; while in 1828, and when wheat ave-
raged 603., they could only _command nineteen pecks.
Since the present Corn - laws were passed, in
1831 the average price of wheat was 665., in 1835 the
average was 395. The cotton-spinners in the dear year
were enabled to command 15 pecks, and in the cheap
year 23 pecks. When the price of wheat was at
665. the poor hand-loom weavers were able to
command only two pecks of wheat, while the price
averaged 395. he was enabled to command four pecks.—
( Hear, hear.) The labourer obtained when wheat was
665. four pecks, and when 31)s. six pecks—the printer at 665.
obtained 17, and when at 395. obtained 28. Now this is the
law that gives protection to productive industry, and which
by maintaining the high price of provisions, places the
working classes in a better position. These are the direct
effects. But what are we to say for a law whose claim it
is to protect industry, when we consider the indirect effect
on the manufacturing class. Why, what is the ground
on which protection is claimed, according to the author
of the amendment? It is that the productive classes
are not able to compete with the cheap and light-taxed
living of other countries. Why, Sir, that is the very case
of the artisan and the manufacturers, they say that they
cannot compete with the cheaper-living and lighter-taxed
artisans of the Continent, and they ask you to give them the
protection of cheap living here, in order that they may
compete with their neighbours abroad.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) They are employed by a foreign em-
ployer, who does not care in what country ha
gets his work done—he cares not whether in England,
or in Switzerland, or in Belgium, but he looks
to what country he can get the work done at the cheapest
rate. He finds that the artisans in Switzerland can pro-
duce cheaper than the English artisan because they
live cheaper.—( Hear.) What interest then can he have
to employ the English unless the English manufacturer
produces as cheap ? Therefore the English manufacturer
tells you to put him on the same footing with the foreign
artisan, and there is this difference between your claim for
protection and his, that he does not ask you to pass a law
to make bread cheap, but to repeal the law which you have
passed to make bread dear.--( Hear, hear.) His case is,
that lie cannot compete with the lightly taxed manufsc-
turer abroad, and that lie cannot do so because you have
taxed his food, and when you claim protection because you
cannot compete with the foreign grower, who is more light-
ly taxed than yourselves—upon what ground do you suppose
he can compete with the foreign manufacturer any more
than yourselves ?—( Hear, hear.) 1 ask if that is justice
to the English manufacturer ? The difference between
hint and the foreigner is this, that one is obliged to pay
dearly for his food, and the other cheaply ; and his diffi-
culty is in competing with the foreigner who lives thus
cheap. And you claim that protection of your inte-
rest, because you say you cannot compete with the foreign
grower, who is so lightly taxed. Now, I ask what pretext
there is for your protection, that is not as good for that of
the manufacturers? I will not refer again to those details of
foreign competition, that I mentioned on a former occasion,
because it seemed to be admitted that this competition did
exist and must continue. But every year the English
manufacturer is called upon to produce an article which
he has been in the habit of producing at a lower cost than
he ever produced it before, and the merchant and factor
who received orders from the foreigner, received also a di-
rection that if he cannot execute their orders at a certain
price he is not to execute them. 'Why, then, he has no
alternative but that of executing at a lower price, or not
executing them at all, and he is obliged constantly to sug-
gest to his workmen that they must work at lower wages
or not work at all. Now this has been going on constantly
for the last five or six years in this country, and it has
already had the effect of throwing vast numbers of our
manufacturers and artisans out of employ.--( Hear, hear.)
I say that competition does exist, and you must consider
that the circumstances of other countries are changed, and
that you cannot retain the monopoly you have hitherto en-
joyed. I want to know whether you can expect that if fo-
reign manufacturers produce more cheaply in consequence
of their cheaper living, that you can retain the manufactures
by which you have given employment and occupation to your
artisans. Sir, lam aware of the argument which has been '
advanced by some of the supporters of the Corn- laws, that
what the manufacturer must depend upon is not the foreign
but the home trade, and that the Corn-laws improve the
home-trade by creating customers. Sir, I don't deny that
the home-trade is beneficial to the home manufacturer, but
that is nay case.—( Hear, hear.) I wish to put the home con-
sumer in the best possible position, and thereby enable him
to consume as much as he can, and I say that the cheaper he
can procure subsistence, the more he has to spend for ma-
nufactures, and that you are by the operation of these Corn-
laws seriously diminishing the means of the home con-
sumer for the benefit of the landlord. Sir, I know that it
is not usual in discussions upon this question to put very
prominently forward the ease attic labourers, and it is new
perhaps to this Session to hear that this is a labourer's
question.--( Hear, hear.) lam perfectly aware that there
is another class whose claim for protection has been WU-
sually put forward as a defence of the Corn-laws—l am
perfectly aware of the claims that have always been put
forth on these occasions in behalf of what is called
the British farrner-7the Elnglish grower. Now, Sir, I really
hope that the case of the British farmer will ree,-
till
this occasion very clear and
eon:sideration ; be-
cause I am well
aware
that that valuable class
of eapitalit's are under some delusion on this subject.—
( Cheers and laughter.) But lam perfectly aware that
they are vigilant on this occasion—that their atteetion
has been roused to the subject, and I think it likely that