The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

E V Rtf I N' C 4-1

when 160,000 men, of the middle classes, were ranged in her
streets in the support of authority—not of disaffection—and
with the determination, without reference to party conse-
quences, to preserve the peace of the country, and to put
down the threats and menaces of the disaffected.—(Cheers.)
But my belief alto is, that this metropolis exhibited an in-
complete and is perfect example of the advantages you de-
rived
from the measures you have adopted—you must go
elsewhere to look for it in its highest effect; you must go
to the great resorts of manufacture; you mile go to the
mines—to the collieries—to those places not subject to those
influences which tell in favour of submission to the authori-
ties and the maintenance of order in the metropolis. You
must look to Stockport, Paisley, Manchester, and see if order
was preserved there in February, 1848. See, again, when
the manufacturing interests were deeply suffering—when
there was loss of employment, and when there were great pri-
vations among the people—see the patience and resignation
with which their sufferings were borne. Why? Because it
was felt that human legislation was not responsible for the
evils under which they laboured.—( Cheers.) I shall not take
London as an example of the order and determination to
maintain the Constitution which then pervaded the country.
I want to see how the West Riding of Yorkshire—how Lan-
cashire and Manchester, which I remember to have been
moved from their foundations in 1818 and 1819 and at
various intervening periods, to have been subject. to the acts
of the seditious and disaffected, so as with difficulty to have
resisted at times the privations to which they were subject
and the temptations held out to them—l want to see how,
with the example of Irish disaffection—of convulsion in
France—of thrones on the Continent shaking to their foun-
dation, and of anarchy prevailing where before there had
been peace—the inhabitants of these districts acted; and I
read this account of the date of April 19, 1849, from the
police-officer of Manchester, of their conduct—
" In presenting these returns, it is impossible to avoid re-
ferring with pride and satisfaction to the state of this
borough during that period of excitement and anxiety
which occurred early in the past year. Slight disturbances
did certainly take place, but when all circumstances are con-
sidered, it will he, I think, generally felt that it is scarcely
possible to have stronger or more satisfactory evidence of
the general intelligence, and loyal and peaceable character
of the population around us, than was afforded by the events
which occurred during the period referred to. Whilst
gratefully acknowledging (as one having some degree of
official responsibility in the maintenance of order) the firm-
ness, vigilance, and watchful care manifested for the pre-
servation of the peace by the mayor and magistrates, the
active organization of districts by the committees of the
council, and the liberality of that body in granting efficient
assistance to the ordinary police, as also the invaluable co-
operation and assistance so readily afforded by the. owners of
warehouses, shops, and property, and by those in their em-
ploy, I venture to suggest that this borough was indebted to
a still larger extent to the working classes and the mill ope-
ratives, for the maintenance of order ; to that important
class, for their expressive disapproval of, and absence of sym-
pathy with, the proceedings of the few disorderly and disaf-
fected individuals who sought to create disturbance ; for their
determination to continue at their ordinary employment, and
to resist any attempt at interference ; and for the prompti-
tude with which they at once agreed to be associated for the
protection of the property of their employers, we are un-
questionably indebted more than to any other source for the
success which happily crowned the efforts of the authorities
to preserve the peace, and protect the property within this
borough, during a period of almostunprecedented excitement
and alarm, and of great privation and distress."
—(Cheers.) Well, surely, these are significant facts—
(Loud cheers)—surely these are decisive proofs that the
policy you adopted in removing the duty on articles of
necessity was a wise policy.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and
loud cheers.) But, Sir, it was no act of a sagaci-
ous Minister. The great and coming crisis was not fore-
seen by any statesman. It was not a lucky accident. illy
belief is that it pleased Almighty God to listen to your
prayers to turn scarcity and dearth into cheapness and
plenty—(Cheers)—and so to direct and prosper your con-
sultations on the brink of a great precipice and on the com-
ing of a tremendous calamity, that you " established peace
and happiness" and the foundations of "truth and jus-
tice."— (Enthusiastic cheering.) You have reaped the
reward of that policy. You have passed unscathed
through the sternest trials to which the institutions of
any nation were ever subjected. You stood erect amid
the convulsions of Europe.—(Great cheering.) And now
you are to have a proposal made to you of some paltry
fixed duty.--(Cheers and counter cheers.) Take then your
ss. duty, and consider what it is. If it be 55., it will
give you ss. on wheat, it will give you 2s. 6d. on barley, 2s.
on oats; that is, Is. 6d. more on barley, and is. more on
oats than yoil have at present —an equivocal advantage at
the best.—(Cheers.) But (continued the Right Hon. Baronet,
in a voice of great solemnity), by every consideration which
can influence consistent and rational Legislators—(lronical
cheering from the Protectionists, and counter cheers from
the rest of the House)—by the highest suggestions of a ge-
nerous policy; by the boldest calculations of the lowest and
most selfish prudence—(Cheers and counter cheers)—I im-
plore you to reject this proffered boon.—(Renewed cheers.) I
implore you not to sacrifice, not to barter, the glorious
heritage yon have obtained by your sagacious and most
timely policy—(Cheers and counter cheers)—for the smallest
and most worthless policy fur which the greatest of ad-
vantages was ever surrendered since the days of him who
sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.—(The Right Hon.
Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and general cheering,
except from the Protectionist benches, from which came
ironical laughter.)
The Marquis of GRANBY hoped the House would be
kind enough to give him its indulgence for a short time,
seeing the great disadvantage under which he rose to answer
his Right Hon. Friend at that late hour of the night. His
Right Hon. Friend had made a very able and a very lengthy
speech ; he had begun by saying that the question to be
decided by the House was, whether her Majesty's Govern-
ment were to, be retained in office, or whether it should
reverse the commercial policy of the country. If that was
really what was at issue, with all respect for her Majesty's
Government, be should have no hesitation in deciding in
favour of what he believed to be the true, the essential, and
the material interest of the country.—(Cheers.) For he could
not agree with his Right Hon. Friend, that the heritage
derived from the measures under consideration was one
which was either glorious or which the House should en-
deavour to retain. His Right Hon. Friend began by thank-
ing his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire for
the admission made at the commencement of his speech—
namely, that there was great prosperity in this country in
the year 1846. His Hon. Friend the Member for Bucking-
hamshire did certainly make that admission, but then that
prosperity was before the tariff of that year, and its conse-
quence the Corn-law Bill of 1849. His Right Hon. Friend
said that the principle of both measures was identical, and
that the one was only carried out further than the other.
But that was the course he (the Marquis of Granby) ob-
jected to ; that was the charge his party had against his
Right Hon. Friend. There was no doubt that to increase the
existing traiff would have been wrong; but, on the other
hand, to reduce it below a moderate amount was, he argued,
to produce what he complained of—injury to the welfare of
the country; and what, under the circumstances, might be
expected—the distress of the agricultural community. The
Hon. Member for Sheffield, on a former night, made the
statement which had been repeated by his Right Hon. Friend
on the present occasion—namely, that if Parliament had not
passed these measures—the tariff and the Corn-law Bill,
the country would have been in danger in 1848, when the
whole continent was co avulsed, and thrones and domi-
nations were toppling down. He (the Marquis of
Granby) presumed that his Right Houourable Friend, or
the Honourable Gentleman, did not mean to argue that
the alteration of the law of 1842, followed by the repeal
of the corn-law in 1846, was the cause of the safety of
the country in 1818. The Bill of 1846 imposed a higher
duty on corn than had previously existed. Did the Right
Hon. Gentleman and the lion. Member for Sheffield mean
to argue that the country was saved from a revolution in
1848 by the total repeal of the corn-law in 1849 ? But it
might be said that such was not the argument. If it was
not so, why, when the universal distress of the country was
attributed to the tariff of 1848, were those who attributed
it to that cause told that free trade had not had a fair trial,
and that consequently no one had any right to impute
these disasters to its agency? On the one hand the
Right Hon. Gentleman and his friends maintained that
the peace and prosperity of the country in 1848 was
owing to a Bill which did not come into operation until
twelve months afterwards; while on the other hand they as-
serted that free trade had not yet had a fair trial. His
(the Marquis of Granby's) Noble Friend the Member
for Sussex had sate?, when the agricultural interest
was distressed on a former occasion, that it was
owing to the abundance of corn in the country, which pro-
duced a low price, which made a material difference in the
nature of the distress felt as well as in its remedy. His
Noble Friend was right. But the Right lion. Gentleman
who spoke last in the debate said that, notwithstanding the
abundance of the crop, the farmer in 1836 made a louder
cry of distress than he did at this moment, and that he was
actually in greater distress. There was a very wide dis.
tinction, however, between the case of the farmer then and
the case of the farmer now. The farmer might be distressed
in 1836, but it was from an accidental circumstance over
which Parliament had no control. But now they were told
that a law had been passed to perpetuate that distress—a
law avowedly to produce low prices—and that nothing
could or would be done to relieve them. The farmer in
1836 knew his distress would be only temporary; and the
Right Honourable Gentleman on that occasioa did what he
could to alleviate it, and ameliorate the farmers' condition—
he did not, as at present, say he would do nothing. That was
the difference ; hope now existed no longer. The farmer
had confidence at that time in the honour of Parlia-
ment; now he had none whatever; and consequently he
either sunk, unrepining, or emigrated to the colonies. A
great deal had been said of the effect these proceedings bad
upon the agricultural labourer. He (the Marquis of Granby)
had stated on a former occasion that in the county of Lincoln
the agricultural labourer was worse off now than in the time
of high wages. The labourer who received formerly 12s. a
week, and was now only paid 10s., admitting him to pay less
for necessaries, was still a loser to the amount of 9d. a week.
His Right Hon .Frient had read a letter from Nottingham—
he presumed it was from a master manufacturer.— (Cheers.)
Now he, too, had a letter from Nottingham ; but it was from
the secretary of the operatives ofNottingham—(Cheers)—
and it was but fair that the House should hear both sides of
the question.—(Cheers.) lie had been called on some time
ago by the operatives of Nottingham for assistance, and he
then learned what was the amount of the wages these
operatives received, and what was the amount of wages for
which they struck. lie learned that the wages they received
weekly was but ss. 6d., and they struck for a rise of
Is. 6d., or seven shillings a week.—(Hear, hear.)
These were important facts—they were such as to call for
and demand the attention of the House. They should, lie
said, endeavour to inquire into these things, and therefore
did he call upon them to vote for the motion of his Hon.
Friend.—(Hear, hear.) The letter he now had to read for
them was from Mr. Emerson. The writer stated that the
operatives now began to see the folly of the free-trade prin-
ciples, and that the free-traders were found to be the greatest
enemies to the working classes—that one of these free-
traders and one of their great manufacturers told a deputa-
tion who waited upon him to ask for an increase of wages,
that he was astonished at their impudence in asking for an
advance when they could get bread and provisions so cheap.
Thus when the poor operatives asked the master manufac-
turer for a rise in their wages, he told them, who had but
ss. 6d., that he was astonished at their impudence. He
would not be at all astonished to find that the master manu-
facturer who said so was the person who had written the
letter to the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The writer, however, continued by saying that " the time
had arrived when the working classes would be no longer
deluded by these persons, for they invariably found them to
be the greatest enemies to the working classes."—(Cheers.)
But if the House would allow him he would come nearer to
this question by showing what degree of benefit the working
classes had derived from these changes. He had there a
return of the reduction of wages in every species of manu-
facture in Manchester since the year 1845. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester was not then in his place, but if he were,
he would be able to tell them whether the returns he was
now about to read were correct or not. First of all then he
bad to show what was the rate of wages in and near Man-
chester in the years 1846 and 1849. In 1846 the price paid
for the making of 75 handkerchiefs was 4s. 6d. ; in 1849,
and for the same amount of work, it was 3s. Bd.—(Hear,
hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other eTena
ing, said that of courts there mutt be a reduction in the