The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-16 00:00:00

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.

Lord J. RUSSELL then gave notice, that he wou'd on
this day fortnight move for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the laws relative to bribery and corruption in the
election of Members to serve in Parliament.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. HUNT rose to bring forward the motion of which
he load given notice on the very first day of his entering
that House, respecting the Corn Laws. From that ma-
ment to the present he had been anxious to bring the sub-
ject forward; but in consequence of the Reform Bill in-
tervening, be had, at the request of his Majesty's Mini-
sters, deferred doing so from day to day. He was glad,
however, now to have an opportunity of redeeming the
pledge which he had voluntarily given to his constituents
en the subject. The political economists, of whom there
were many in that House, would doubtless tell them that
the landlords would not suffer by the repeal of the Corn
Laws. He (Mr. Hunt) said no such thing. He could
not deceive them. He knew they must suffer. They
must lower their rents—they must reduce the paytnenti,
for tithes—and they must diminish taxation. All this
they must do the moment the Corn Laws were repealed,
before they could hope that the farmers of this country
would be able to compete with those of the Continent.
In the course of the last forty years tithes had been raised
from one hundred to three or four, and rent quite as
much. The landlords must prepare to give up at least
one-third of this, and it was right they should know it.
He had made calculations, which showed that the average
price
of wheat in the market of Hamburg for the last
three years had been 335. 6d. a quarter, while the average
in Mark-lane was 61s. 2d. If the Corn Laws had
not tseen in operation the people might, 'therefore, have
paid just two-fifths Leila for their bread during the whole
AA that tie.le, fur at two-fifthe less he was confident foreign
grain could he delivered in the ports of this country. Ex-
tending his calculations still further, and taking, as he be-
lieved there were, 24,000,000 of people in the three
kingdoms, he found that each individual, rich and poor,
high and Low, paid now just sixpence a week during each
year more than he should do for the bread he consumed.
Now this amounted every year to the sum of 31,200,000/.
paid by the people as a tax on the article of bread. It
avu impossible that the labourers could continue to exist
on the sums now paid diem by the farmers, or that the
farmers, with such rents, conta give much more. Forty
years ago a large estate in Wiltshire that he knew well—
the Hon. Member for that county (Etr, Benett) knew it
too—that estate paid a tent of 600/. a yea.r to the land-
lord, and the labourers employed on it received six
shillings a week. That same estate had been for many
years let at a rent of 1,800/. a year, and what did the
labourers on it receive now? Why seven shillings a
week ! How could a labourer and his family live on
such a sum ? If that state of things did not produce
the late distress and all the misfortunes by which its exist-
ence was marked, be knew not what did produce it.
The people, in many cases, were starving—yes, starving in
the streets ; and be contended that the Corn Laws were
the sole cause of their sufferings. What was
in the
;
said
Ministerial organ, the Times, on this subjects—(Hear.)
He repeated that the Paper which was supposed to speak
the opinion of the Ministers, however it might garble the
accounts of the debates of the House to answer their pur-
pose, knew better than to support them on the question

of the Corn Laws. The briellese barrister who dictated
from his closet the course the Government should pursue,
did not forget that it was necessary to sell his Paper.—
(Oh ! ) What did he say on the Corn Laws ? On the 27th of
August the Editor of that Paper said, " that while the
produce of the soil of England for many years past had
been stationary, if not declining, our lawgivers have been
straining every effort to make food inaccessible, instead of
more attainable to the poor. Far from inviting bread to
the poor man's door, they have been repelling it; first
by open prohibitions ; next, and to this moment, by sev,re
and pinching duties. They have striven to check popula-
lion by artifical famine." This was what the Times
said ; and there was a great deal of truth in it. If the
Government could say it was not so, then he would con
tend, that there never was any language used before which
so well deserved the notice of the Attorney- General. They
had been told that the passing of the Reform Bill would
produce an immediate repeal of the Corn Laws. If he
eould bring himself to think that, then he would hail the
Bill as a great boon to the country. He knew, however,
that it would not be so, and that the Government were
determined to oppose their repeal, although the public
organs under their controul had held that out, among
other things, as an inducement to the people to support the
Bill. He should like the House to know what were the
hopes and expectations founded on the Bill. Tne people
of Bolton had announced a few of the pledges they would
require from the candidate for their suffrages. The first
was, a total repeal of the corn laws ; the next, an equi-
table adjustment of the debt; then justice brought to
every man's door; the abolition of places and pensions ;
the abolition of monopolies ; the repeal of all taxes op-
pressing the middle and the lower classes ; and the repeal
of the Law of Primogeniture. The places and pensions
would probably last as long as the present King lived ;
and as to the repeal of the taxes that pressed on the
middle and lower classes, if they were taken away, he
should be glad to know how the expences of the State were
to be defrayed; but this was a specimen of the pledges
which Bolton and some of the new districts were deter-
mined to exact from their representatives. The corn
laws were invented to support the tithes and the taxes;
and the plain question now was—whether they could go
on as they did last winter, with all the miseries, and suf
ferings, and burnings which they had witnessed for so
many months ? He regretted much to see that the character
of the agricultural population was much deteriorated from
the miseries they had suffered, and that so far from think-
ing, as they used to do, that they never could do too much
for their toasters, they now looked on them as their enemies,
and were disposed to thwart and oppose them. Bad as
the condition of the agricultural labourers was known to
be, the manufacturing were in a state of misery which it
was almost impossible to describe. The wages they earned
with fourteen hours' labour were scarcely enough to sup-
port life. It was said the Reform Bill would relieve them.
He denied that ; and he therefore now called on the House,
unsupported although he might be—he called on them,
and on the Nobility and landholders of the country, to
make a sacrifice at once, and, by repealing the corn laws,
preserve the peace and secure the prosperity of the country.
After observing that the standing army and the militia were
retained purely for the sake of keeping down the com-
plaints of those whom the corn laws rendered wretched
and discontented, and remarking at the same time (amid
expressions of dissent) that wheat, in the markets of War-
minster and Devizes, had been as high as 80s. a quarter
during the last two or three months, while at Hamburg it
was only 355., the Hon. Member concluded by moving
for leave to bring in a Bill for the total repeal of all exist-
ing Acts tending to prohibit or interfere with the free im-
port 'thin of corn int the United Kingdom.

Mr. JAMES seconded the motion. He was aware that
those who advocated the total repeal of the corn laws
plunged themselves into a hornet's nest. At the risk, how-
ever, of being stung, he would do his duty. He thot4irt
it was not probable that such a measure should be carried
in this Parliament. In his opinion, therefore, the Hon.
Member for Preston would have done better to have post-
poned his motion till the House was reformed—till schedule
A and schedule B were become the law of the land. The
first act of a reformed Parliament would be, be believed,
to abolish the corn laws. He thought no circumstances
could justify impeding the people in obtaining a supply of
food, but particularly in a country lice ours, in which the
climate compelled us to have recourse to importation. All
laws prohibiting the importation of corn deprived the in-
dustrious classes of a market for the produce of their labour,
and so raised the price of food that labourers could not pro-
cure a sufficiency of food without intolerable toil. It also
made it the object of foreigners to encourage native manu-
factures, depriving us of the trade of aripplying them, making
them our rivals, and injuring the stripping interest. He bad
heard a gentleman say corn was bought with gold, not
manufactures; but, in fact, the gold was bought
by our manufactured goods in South America. It
was said that the agriculturists were so heavily taxed,
that they would he ruined if foreign corn were im-
ported. Corn laws were established, therefore, to pro-
tect the landed inter est, hut it was notorious that these laws
had not protected that interest. When it was .aid that agri-
culturists were exposed to heavy taxes, he wished to remind
them that the property tax, the tax on farm servants,
on salt, and many other taxes, had been repealed or abo-
lished. He did not believe that the repeal could affect the
agricultural interests injuriously. It could nor ruin the
farmers. Our manufactures would then he demanded to
a greater extent abroad, and the manuficturers would then
be able to buy animal food, and be much better customers
than at present to the farmers. They would pay for the
cultivating bad lands as pasturage. Those who saw only
the metropolis, were not aware of the miserable condition
of the labourers. Let the landlords, then, reduce their
rents, and those who drove four horses drive only two, and
those who drove two drive only one, and those who drove
one go o❑ foot. The vain distinctions of the few sank,
in his estimation, into nothing, in comparison to the
comfort of millions. He bad visited the dwellings of the
poor, and he was of opinion that no picture of their mise-
ries could be too highly coloured. Those people were
without furniture, without clothes, and he had seen chil-
dren crying for bread, which their parents could not give
them. They were worse off than the negro slaves. He
hoped before the end of six years, to find as large a ma-
jority in favour of repealing the Corn Laws, as be now
found in favour of a measure for reforming Parliament.

Mr. BENETT, as he had been called on to give an ex-
planation as to the rise of rent on one of his own farms,
would say, that fifteen years ago he found it necessary to
contradict some statements of the Hon. Member for Pres-
ton, relative to the farm which the lion. Member then re-
ferred to. The Hon. Member had not then refuted his
statements. The fact was that the farm, sixty years ago,
let for six hundred pounds a year, and it was now let for
one thousand eight hundred pounds ; but it was formerly
a lease on lives. He had, since then, paid 10,0001. for
the great tithes of that farm, which now formed part
of it ; he had also given another estate of 500/. for
the vicarial tithes, and they had been added to the farm,
and the whole was let for 1,8001. The advance in forty-
five years, at the time he published his former statement,
and in sixty years, including the fifteen years since, only
gave hint 12 per cent. on his money. These statements
were before the public. The lion. Member knew ti,e
whole p aticulars, and had never contradicted them. The
Hon. Member, however, had stated over and over again,
that he had raekod up his rent from 600/. to 1,8001. arid
never once stated, thought he knew them, any one of ti e
facts on which that rise of the rent was justified. He
stated the rise of the rent, but nothing of his having pur-
chased the tithes and attached them to the farm. He was
surprised that the Hon. Member should attempt to delude
the House in that manner.—(Hear, hear.) He was happy
to be able to refuse the lion. Member's statement in that
House, as he could not refuse them at Spa-fields or at a
meeting of the Livery. The Hon. Member had never
contradicted them,—(" I will," said Mr. HUNT)—
(Order.) He wished the House to understand that he
was able to refute all the Hon. Member's strements.—
(Cheers.) Heobjected to discussing the great question of
the Corn Laws then, as that would damage the great ques-
tion of Reform. It was artfully insinuated that Reform
would destroy the Corn Laws, in order to turn the farmers
against the Bill ; but the farmers knew that a Reliirmed
Parliament would do justice to all classes, and they could
not be deluded by the Hon. Member.
Mr. HUME regretted, on a question of such im-
portance, the Hon. Member for Wiltshire should have
alluded to any personal matters. lie contended that it
was not the landlord who fixed the value of a farm, any
more than the farmers fixed the value of their stock.
'Why should the landowner be different in this respect
from the grocer ?—(Cheers.) He did not fix the price
of his article. The price of land was fixed by the gene-
ral demand. It was a gross fallacy to say that landlords
fixed the rent of farms. The Hon. Member said that the
landlords must reduce their rents.—(Mr. HUNT said he
had not stated that they must, but that they should re-
duce the rents.) Mr. Hume might have misunderstood
the Hon. Member, but he (lid not know the difference in
this point between should and must. The Hon. Member
might have chosen an .then time to bring forward such an
important. motion, rather than at a time when the House
was occupied with a matter of so much more importance.
He would put it to the constituent. of the Hon. Member,
And of the Hon. Member for Carlisle, of whose sincerity
he was well assured—he would put it to their constituency
if this were the proper time to interpose with such a
question, when the House was engaged in carrying Re.

form into all the institutions of the State? The House
was fatigued—(hear)—with the discussion on a most im-
portant subject, and this was not a time to introduce such
a matter as the Corn Laws, which demanded the most
mature consideration. The House ought not to be
captivated with a motion which would effect, be believed,
so much ruin as would a total repeal of the Corn Laws. He
was sure that the constituents of the Hon. Member would
agree with him, and that they would like a gradual and
proper change, instead of jumping to it at once. The
Hon. Member for Preston had not brought forward any
arguments to justify that change. He had referred merely
to the price of corn in Hamburg and London for a few
years, which were inaccurate and fallacious, as the only
ground for the proposed change. He should take a larger
view, and extend his energies over longer periods. The
Hon. Member had over-stated the loss too, for if the ports
were opened prices would rise in the markets of the Con-
tinent, and there would not be that difference on which
the Hon. Member had calculated the loss to the country.
The Hon. Member stated too, that the landlords should
he compelled to reduce their rents, but why not leave them
to let their lands as they could ? The landlords, in fact,
had come down one-third with their rents already. If
the Hon. Member had kept up his rents he must be a
fortunate man. Was it fair to attribute to the landlords
all the distress of the country? Those who hired land
would not hire it unless they made a profit by it. The price
of land was regulated by competition, and it was unfair
in the Hon. Member to attribute the distress to the
high rents. Taxes were, undoubtedly, a cause of
poverty, but a want of prudence was also a cause.
The Hon. Member took no notice of their being a sur-
plus of hands in the country. . The competition in the
market for labour was too great, and it was no longer
worth while to bring that commodity to the market. He
wished the Hon. Member to consider the influence which the
state of the population had on their prosperity. He must
complain of the Hon. Member having introduced several
extraneous matters into the discussion, which had no re-
lation to the motion before the House. He was satisfied
that the Corn Laws had injured the agriculturists by
throwing the idle on them for support, who would other-
wise have found employment in our manufactures. At
the same time, lie was not prepared to contend for so
sudden and material a change as the total abolition of the
Corn Laws. He had wished that a tax should be levied
on the importation, but that the importation should be
left free. That was the extent to which he wished to
go. Every change in legislation did harm. The greater
the change the greater the evils. Though he was a Re-
former, he would inflict no unnecessary evil. The pre-
sent motion would be productive of great evil. He re-
gretted that the question should have been damaged by
such a premature discussion; and he felt himself under
the necessity, as he could not negative such a motion, to
move the previous question on it.
Lord ALTHORP said that the question was of such
great importance, and required so much deliberation, that
he regretted that the Hon. Gentleman should have brought
it forward. The Hon. Member was not to blame for
bringing it forward so late in the Session, but at any time
during the Sessio❑ the motion must have been inconve-
nient. He would not enter upon the arguments then. If
the question had come before the House for a total repeal
of t►te Corn Laws, it must have been met by a direct ne-
gative, as it was proposed to refer the Corn Laws to a
Committee, the previous question was a proper course.
Mr. G. LANGTON said a few words, which were in-
audible in the gallery.
Colonel TORRENS did not think this a fit time to dis-
cuss the question. He, however, retained all his former
opinions.

GOULBURN considered that this was an im-
proper time to bring the question forward ; and lie thought
that upon the present occasion the question ought to be
met by a direct negative, instead of by a motion for the
previous question.

Lord ALTHORP did not mean to give any pledge to
the effect that Ministers would bring forward any motion
upon this subject. If it had been a motion for the direct
repeal of the Corn Laws, he would have met it by a
pointed negative ; but as it was only fir a Committee, and
as they ought not to be absolutely rejected, he would sup-
port the Hon. Member for Middlesex in moving the pre-
vious question.

Mr. HUNT replied, and the gallery was cleared for a
division.
The House then divided--
For the motion of Mr. Hunt 6
Against it 194
Majority -188
WINE DUTIES' BILL.

When the gallery was re-opened for the admission of
strangers,

Mr. HERRIES was stating his objections to the third
reading of the Wine Duties' Bill. He said that, even
upon the statement of the Noble Lord himself, no man
could know in what way his Majesty's Ministers were jus-
tified in passing a Bill, the only effect of which seemed to
be to place additional taxes of 180,0001. upon the people.
It was not as a question of finance alone that he consi-
dered it important; nor was it so important commercially
as politically. As to the Alethuen Treaty, he would ask
the Noble Lord whether a continuance of 180 years was
not enough to make it so binding upon both parties, that
neither could abrogate it without notice or explanation
to the other ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it to be considered
so little binding upon England, that it could be so
terminated by a vote of that House, without even any
ground of necessity having been alleged to excuse the
violation ? Was that done, then, merely to show our
disregard of treaties, and to give warning to other na-
tions never to rely upon our friendship, or to expect from
us an observance of our obligations ? As the case now
stood, the conclusion was inevitable that there was
some political motive for that proceeding which was not
disclosed—(Hear, hear.) Ministers ought to have pur-
sued a course, not merely consistent with what we owe to
Portugal, but also with what Britain owed to her own
dignity.—(Hear.) From the unusual and almost unac- '
countable delay in the production of those papers which
had been called for respecting our relations with Portugal
—from the reluctance manifested to supply information
upon that subject—the only conclusion which could be
arrived at was, that his Majesty's Ministers had determined
upon some new course of policy.—(Hear.) It would
seem from their conduct, that they thought it better, for
the interest of England, that the Peninsula should be left
entirely in the hands of France, than that any part of it
should be connected with England, or dependent upon
her friendship. He thought, that the consequences to
British commerce would be such, as no man could more
regret them than the Noble Lord (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) himself.
Lord ALTHORP would say a few words on each of
the branches into which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
divided the question—its political, commercial, and
financial operation ; but first he wished to advert very
briefly to the remarks made upon the Budget, which he
(Lord Althorp) had brought forward iu the last Parlia-
ment. He admitted, that upon some points it had failed,
Parliament not having seconded his views; but, he con-
tended, that it had succeeded as far as related to the duty
on coals, on printed calicoes, and to the future reduction
of the tax upon (we believe) candles. These three ob-
jects had been fully accomplished. The receipts of the
revenue, as exhibited at the close of the last quarter, did
nor justify him in abandoning the advantage to be derived
from this proposed change in the duty on wines; and at
present, at least, it was impossible for Government to
afford to relinquish any more taxes. Looking at the
measure as a commercial regulation, it seemed to him
highly desirable, since the effect of it would be to draw
closer our bonds of relationship with France, while it did
not weaken those with Portugal. The latter Power
could have no just ground of offence after the notice that
bad been already given. He was sure that it was the
policy of this country, and the people in general
were beginning to feel it, to keep on terms of po-
litical friendship wi'h our nearest and most powerful
neighbour; and as the Bill before the House would increase
our trade with France, without lessening it materially with
Portugal, it was called for, if regard only were had to the
interests of our merchants and manufacturers. It was
indisputably the policy of this country to keep up a
commercial connection with a rich kingdom in preference
to a poor one, although that policy hitherto had not always
been pursued. The state of Europe rendered it peculiarly
expedient at the present moment to act upon this prin-
ciple. As far as Spai❑ was cancer ned, Great Britain cer-
tainly owed her no peculiar favour; and as far as re-
garded the linen trade, she hail imposed a prohibitory
duty,—in other articles she had given this country no ad-
vant ige; and, on the whole, there was no reason to ex-
pect that the exports to Spain and Portugal would be
lessened by the passing of this measure. Neither did he
think that the sin ill increase iu the duty on Portuguese
wines would lessen their consumption, excepting in as far
as by lowering the duty on French wines, those might be
substituted. Thus an addition of 180,0001. would be
gained to the revenue, the trade of the nation would be
benefitted, and no country would have a right to com-
plain of injury inflicted. For many years he had been
convinced of the wisdom of the course now taken, and he
had availed himself of the earliest opportunity of adopt-
ing it.
Mr. GOULBURN argued that the reduction of the
duty on coals, on which the Noble Lord congratulated
himself, had not by any means answered the expectations

held out to the country : the largest proportion of money
had been taken from the revenue, and the smallest propor-
tion of advantage given to the consumer ; for while the
revenue lost at the rate of 6s, per chaldron, the public
gained only at the rate of 2s. per chaldron. In the same
way the Noble Lord would find that the price of wine to
the consumer would be enhanced to double the amount
that the revenue was improved. The Noble Lord had not
attempted to answer the objection founded on the nature
of the trade of Great Britain with Portugal, and it was
not the mere delay of this Bill that could be sufficient notice
to our ancient ally of the change; hence Portugal would
haves reasonable ground of complaint. Neither had the
Noble Lord attempted to show that it was necessary to in-
jure Portugal in order to draw closer the bonds of amity
with France. He (Mr. Goulburn) did not blame Minis-
ters for abandoning the Methuen Treaty so much as for the
manner in which they had abandoned it.
Mr. BRISCOE, referring to what had been said with
respect to the coal tax, expressed much regret that the
public were not likely to derive such relief from the dimi-
nution of the duty as they had a right to expect. In his
opinion, the reason why the wise and just intentions f
his Majesty's Government were not carried into effect
was, that the individual owners of coal mines were enable
to preserve a monopoly most injurious to the public. He
hoped the public would be alive to all the mischief pro-
ceeding from that source, and press upon Parliament the
necessity of protection from its operation. With respect
to the course which he should pursue on that subject, he
felt it his duty to state, that if the price were not speedily
lowered, he should move that the tax be re-imposed, and
some other repealed in its stead.
Mr. T. P.COURTENAY contended that the Treaty of
Methuen ought not to be departed from except with the
consent of Portugal, or in consequence of some injury done
to this country, and reartration refused. He hoped the
Noble Lord would opposite would soon lay upon the table
of the House the papers relating to this matter, for which
he had felt it to be his duty to move.
Mr. S. WORTLEY admitted that the prices of coals
had riot been lowered as much as the diminished duty
would seem to warrant ; but the owners of coal mines de-
rived no advantage from that. As soon as the reduction
of duty was made known in the North, the pitmen struck
for increased wages. It was quite a mistake to suppose
that the coal owners of the North had the power of com-
bining to raise the prices of coals as the Hon. Member
for Surrey seemed to imagine.
Lord PALNIERSTON, in reply to what was said by an
Hon. Member opposite, relative to the production of papers
for which he had moved, begged to assure the Hon. Mem-
ber that no time should he lost in laying them before the
House. As lie had risen, he wished that the proposition
the❑ before the House had not been brought forward on
the ground of any alleged injury done to this country by
Portugal ; the stipulations of the treaty itself warranted
such a proceeding—they had full power to adopt such a
proceeding without giving any notice whatever to Portu-
gal. He wished to add, that the papers for o hich the
Hon. Gentleman moved had no bearing whatever upon
tie present measure—it rested upon the Trewy of Methuen
itself.

Mr. T. P. COURTENAY understood that the Noble
Lord opposite put it on the other ground—namely, the
conduct of Portugal.
Lord ALTHORP must have been misunderstood.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter past Two.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
Who voted for Mr. Hunt's Motion for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Bulwer, Henry Coventry I Hughes, H Oxford
Calvert, Charles Southwark Langton, Gore Somersetshire
Ellis, Wynn Leicester Noel, Sir G Rutland
TELLERS—Henry Hunt and William James.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
Of CA, who voted in favour of Mr. T. Duncombe's Motion to
Transfer the Nomination Borough of Aldborough from Sche-
dule B to Schedule A, in which it originally stood.
Acheson, Lord Grattan, James Rochefort, G.
Barratt, J. C. Harvey, I). W. Robinson, Sir G.
Biddulph, J. M. Hughes, W. H. Ruthven, E. S.
Blamire, W. Hutchinson, J. H. Rider, T.
Burton, H. Jephson, C. D. 0. Smith, JA.
Bulwer, H. L. Jerningham, H.V. S. Smith, M. T.
Buller, J. W. Labouchere, H. Stanhope, Capt. R.
Bouverie, P. P. Lefevre, C. S. Strutt, E.
Campbell, J. Lennox, Lord J. G. Stuart, Lord P. J. H.
Clive, Henry Lennox, Lord A. Tomes, J.
Currie, J. Lester, B. L Troubridge, Sir E.
Chandos, Marquis of Martin, John Vincent, Sir F.
Cradock, S. Millbank, M. Watson, Hon. R.
Denison, W. J. Mhls, John Wason, W. It.
Dundas, J. C. Moreton H. Wilbraham, G.
Dundas, T. Ossory, Earl of Williamson, Sir H.
F.asthope, J. Paget, T. Westenra, lion. It.
F.twall, R. Phillipps, C. M. Williams, Sir J. H.
Evans, Col. De Lacy l'rotheroe, E. Wilks, J.
Ewart, W. Pryse, P. TELLELIS.
Ferguson, Sir R. Ramsbottom, J. Ingilby, Sir W.
Grattan, H. Rickfurd. W. Dunconahe, T. S.