The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-20 00:00:00

subject.--( hear, hear, hear.) He was a Member for an
agricultural constituency, and be was certain the repeal of the
Corn-laws would be most injurious to the agricubural, and
through them to the manufacturing interests.—(Hear, hear.)
He could not help recollecting what would have been the con-
dition of this country at a period like that of the late American
distress if it had not been for the home markets. He was con-
vinced the present agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws was
the consequence of the late high prices of corn, by which, how-
ever, the farmers had not banefited.—( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," from anti-Corn-law Members.) For while the farmer

nominally received 755. per quarter, he really only received 505.,
being compelled to pay his labourers 12s. or 13s. a-week, when
he formerly gave them only N. or 10s.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord finished by declaring that be would oppose the
motion.

N;..
HORSMAN said he should vote for the motion, just
because it would lead to a repeal of the Corn-laws.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord who had just sat down might be well as-
quainted with the subject, but other Members were not, and
was it fair that they should be prevented from informing
themselves upon the question ?—(Hcar, hear, hear.) Until
recent facts were laid before the House, he had no
idea that our commerce and. manufactures bad been so much
deteriorated by the Corn-laws, The Noble Lord (Worsley)
said that no now facts were wanted on this question—that the
House had already received all the details that could be wished,
but it was no evidence that official returns had given but partial
information. They might have shown the relation of our ex-
ports and imports, but they would not have shown any
evidence of that alarming competition in foreign coun-
tries as was stated by the Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton in his review of manufactures and manufactur-
ing establishments abroad. But when the House was told that
not only were our exports decreasing—that some branches of
our manufactures had mach declined, and that some countries,
once our best customers, had now became alarming competitors
—that unless speedy change was effected a great body of our
manufacturers must leave the country—it must be confessed
that those facts were new to many Hon. Members. They cer-
tainly were so to him, and doubtless there were hundreds of
facts of equal importance, w hich would be adduced for the first
time, if the proposed inquiry were gone into. Let them ask
themselves who came forward to introduce these facts? They
were men in whose hands were placed the entire manufacturing
capital of this country—who supported a population of five or
six millions by their payments of wages, and who had continued
to pay them those wages for two years without receiving any
profits.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated that those capitalists
had paid the operatives for two years wi•hout re-
ceiving one farthing of profit, and would, he feared have
to continue to do so. Now, al that those employers asked of
the House as a great favour, was, that they would concede to
them an opportunity of establishing their propositisms by evi-
dence at the bar; but he feared that if they were to retire
with the impre-sion that all chance of redress from this House
was hopeless, they must reduce the wages of their workmen ;
and in this event he would beg to warn the House against the
alai ming consequences that must ensue. As for the arguments
that had been aovaneed against. the desired inquiry, they differed
in no degree from those that had been adduced on former occa-
sions; and when, as the Noble Lord admitted, precedents were
iratituted. After what the Noble Lord had stated as to the
probability that if t e inquiry were granted; one portion of the
Hon Members wouldbe at dinner—another would b. asleep—the
Chairman would be wi iting verses—and the only attentive
parties would be the questioners and the answerers, he thought
that if this indeed were likely to happen, it would not much
raise the House in the estimation of the public. lie would not
trespass farther upon the attention of the House, but would
conclude by entreating them for the sake of justice and huma-
nity not to shut their eyes against the information that the peti-
tioners now offered.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HEATHCOTE rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,'
divide." He. trusted that, as his Hon. Colleague had pre-
sented 170 petitions upon the subject, he might be permitted
to say a few words. Now he would at once say that he would
give a decided opposition to the proposal of the lion. Member
for Wolverhampton, both on point of principle and on point of
form. First of all he denied that there was any necessity for
inquiry, because there was no necessity for appeal. He did not
think that the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton
had shown that deterioration in our manufactures which he had

set out with asserting, but even if he had other reasons might
be shown fir it. However, no class of men had a right to say,
we will benefit ourselves at the expense of our neighbours; we
will get out of the mire on the shoulders of ether people.-
-(Laughter, and hear, hear.) During the long time that he
had been a Member of the House he had never known of a
similar inquiry. He assured them that if the inquiry now
asked for were granted it would go on ad infinitum ; for Hon.
Gentlemen must remember that if a great number of witnesses
should be brought forward to prove one side of the case, they,
the Corn-law supporters, should have to bring forward a great
number to sustain their side. He would ask them, then, how
long was this inquiry to last? Let them consider, further, that
they must have two sets of speeches ; they must all know there
was another House setting in town on this question ; and no
doubt that the Members o that House admitted below the bar
n-.ust be permitted to make speeches in reply to the speeches
of the Members of this House above it.—(Laughter.) On these
grounds he should most decidedly vote against the inquiry. In
truth, there was essentially little or no difference between the
prices of corn at present and those of apparently cheap seasons.
The Noble Lord (Worsley) bad already shown that the pre-
sent high prices were the. result of the deficient harvest. They
had scarcely had any Corn-laws for several months; the ports
were open, the Corn-laws were in abeyance.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.) It was therefore an extraordinary time to
bring forward the present application ; he hoped, however, the
time would soon come when the question, who benefited by
the Corn-laws, or who did not, would be decided. A
serious disadvantage, indeed, would be entailed if this
motion were to be periodically renewed. It must indeed
be a serious inconvenience to gentlemen who had to come
up from the country and remain a long time in town to learn
that the question would be put off for a fortnight. The Hon,.
Member for Wolverhampton ought to say that he would bring
the question to an issue.—(Loud cries of " Question" and
" Divide.") After some interruption
Mr WARBURTON rose and said that, the lion. Gentleman
who had just sat down had very much misconceived the utility
of the motion now before the House. He did not know the
precise object of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but he
thought that the intention must le an eminently useful one."---
an object to place all the Hon. Gentlemen opposite in the
wrong—(Laughter)—an object to permit those who complained
of the Corn-laws as a grievance, to show wherein the evils
consisted, and to explain to the House what were these causes.
Did they think that Gentlemen, predisposed on this question,
would not be happy to receive information upon it?
When the Honourable Member for Wiltshire, on the

first night of the session, brought forward some facts in
favour of the present system, which they (the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite) considered undeniable, did they make any objection
then ? Not they. He referred to certain admissions which
had been made by the Chairman of the Manchester Chamber
of Commerce. Those admissions, which told one way, were
eagerly received, while those of an opposite character they now
seemed unwilling to permit to be established by evidence.—
( Hear.) The object of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
and his supporters was, as he had already said, to prove that the
Hon. Gentleman opposite were in the wrong. Indeed, in
doing this they were already successful.--(Laughter, and
Hear, bear.) If all the Hon. Members of the House vi ere as
enlightened on this question as her Majesty's Ministers must
be, there would indeed be no necessity for further evidence. If
they could examine the escrutoirs of the Right Honourable
the President of the Board of Trade, and those of some
other departments, and see -the representations of the Prus-
sian and other Governments, showing what advantages would
ensue if the restrictions against the importation of their
corn and timber were removed, then indeed they might re-
' fuse to hear this application. But they had no such ample
information. However, he would now ask the Right Hon. the
President of the Board of Trade what representation he and his
colleagues bad received from those several Governments?—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. W.) had no intention of trespassing
on the House at further length, but from the observations of
the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire and of the Noble Lord, he
thought it necessary to defend his Hon. Friend, who, he
thought, had acted wisely and rightly; and had given those who
concurred with him an opportunity of proving that the Hon.
Gentlemen who opposed the inquiry were entirely in the wrong.
He believed that until the manufacturing and working classes
should pull together—until the fears of the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite were operated upon—(Loud cheers)—until the fears
of those Gentlemen were operated upon—( Renewed cheers)—
by the whole body of the people and the manufacturers pulling
together, the Corn-laws would not be repealed.—(Cheers.)
But the day would come, and then the Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site would have a different story to tell.—( Laughter, and cheers.)
Mr. Cayley and Mr. Poulett Thomson rose together, there
were loud cries for the latter, but the Right Hon. Gentleman
gave way.
Mr. CAYLEY—As the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down had most truly stated, when the working classes and their
masters pulled together they would be irresistible, but the Hon.
Gentleman was very much mistaken if he supposed the masters
had so tar deluded the operatives—(Tory cheers. )—or that
they pulled with them on the present ocetrion. The operatives
of the master manufacturers had had the bitter experience of
the last twenty years of the sympathy which the masters felt
for them. Well had he seen since he had become a Member of
that House, the sympathy exhibited by that class in favour of the
poor, emaciated, crippled, death-like factory workmen.
`Yell did he remember when his Hon. Friend lied, year after
year, brought forward his motion for the relief of the hand-
loom-weavers what was the tone of the masters.—(Hear,
hear.) Was the tone taken on the present occasion that
adopted by them formerly? Was the subject made a ques-
tion of hunger, and as if that alone should guide their de-
liberations on the question? No. It was that the power-
loom weavers and spinners must have employ—that it was
impossible for the hand-loom weavers to compete with them
and therefore they must sink without either commisseration
or sympathy. They assertion made use of out of doors, that
this was a question of hunger, and ought not to be made a
narty question, had been again brought forward. Why, good
'God! if it was a case of hunger—if it was the case of a nation
stretching out for food, did they think that the landed in-
terest would not be as ready as the manufacturers to come
forward?—(Cheers. It was not a question of hunger, but
it was a question of whether the people of that country
who had been engaged for centuries in the production of corn
for their own consumption, would be allowed to do so instead
of the labourers of another country.—( Hear, hear.) He en-
tirely agreed with the Noble Lord the Member for Northum-
berland, as to the impolicy of consenting to the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He denied hat the
distress among the manufacturers was in any way attribu-
table to the Corn-1a •s. Had Honourable Members not heard
of the panic in the American market, and the reduction that
had taken place in the demand for that species of produce both
there and upon the Continent With respee to the statement
put forth by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that the in-
crease of manufactures in other countries arose entirely from
the restrictive course adopted by that country with respect to
importation of corn, he (Mr. Cayley) was prepared to show
that the restriction had nothing to do with the matter.
Foreign countries, long before that period, were prepared to
manufacture for themselves. What was the case with regard
to manufactures since the time of the invention of the steam
engine? The application of steam came into full operation
just at the close of the war in 1800, and it was impossible that
that discovery, or its application, could be carried into effect on
the Continent in time of war, but after the peace in 1814, the
labouring population abroad had their exertions turned
into that channel, and hence the competition that was
now springing up. Perhaps he was not confining himself
strictly to the question before the House, but he felt
it right to answer the observations of the Honourable
Member for Wolv rhampion He denied that the landed pro-
prietors of hat country had more interest in the question than
the yeomen or s op-keepers of the West Riding of Yorkshire,
in fact the latter had a ten times greater interest. In conclu-
sio he should gi ie his decided oppo ition to the motion.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON—Sir, it appears to me that
the question of the Corn-laws themselves is not to be discussed
to nig t, but that it is to be reserved for a future occasion, I
shall therefore confine ley-self in the few words, I shall offer to
he House, entirely to the question immediately underour atten-
tion,viz., 'he propriety of agreeing to the motion, my Hon. F. mend
the Member foriWolverhampton of herring evidence at the bar._
of hearing the petitioners in this ease at the bar of the House.
Sir, I have waited till this hour, and I gave way to the Hon.
Member who last addressed you, to hear what might be said
against this motion of my Hon. Friend, by those Gentlemen
whose opinions are generally known to be adverse to any change
in the Corn-laws, and I must say that it appears rather strange
to me that we should have heard but three Gentlemen, and
these on this side of the House, whose opinions are against a
change in the Corn-laws, get up and advocate the refusal of
the motion of my Hen. Friend. I can well understand the