The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-16 00:00:00

the Corn-laws, because they considered it a delusion to
tell them that that repeal would relieve their sufierings.
And at a late meeting at Liverpool of the working
classes, the chairman said—That the next speaker,
Robert Jones, though a man well able to express his
views on this great question, was unable to read, and he,
the chairman, would therefore move the resolution for
him—
" That these laws, which wring from the wants of the
poor, in order to support a monopoly to the wealthy, are
• cruel, unchristian, mid unjust ; alike opposed to the
word of God and the happiness of man."
Robert Jones, in moving the adoption of this reso-
lution, said that, " like some hundreds, if not thousands,
of those present, all the property that he had in the
world he had with him—all the estate that God and his
father had left him on the earth, and that English land--
lords would allow him, he held up to them (holding up
his hands). These were all his property ; and he found
that in consequence of the Corn-laws, and other wicked
laws, he was robbed of so much of the produce of his es-
tate that he and his children had to rise many a time
from the table with half-filled bellies.—(Hear, hear.)
This was not the cause of party or faction. It was the
cause of th.whole human family—it was the cause of
justice and truth—of, God, and of humanity ! A
tax upon bread !—Et tax upon life itself—a tax on
the very existence of the working man—a tax on eternal
justice, and on the providence of God !—(Hear, hear.)
God sent untaxed rain to water the earth ; God brought
untaxed corn out of the earth ; God had spread a boun-
tiful table for the whole family of man on the face of
the earth—but man put his avaricious hand on the
bread, and snatched it from the hungry lips of the people
of England."
The question on the minds of all those who were friends
of humanity and justice was what under such circum-
stances was to be done. It was well known to the
working, and to every other class of society, that there
was abundance of wealth and property in the country ;
and the poorer classes were of opinion that they ought
to be relieved out_of the superfluities of the rich by the
imposition of a property tax.- It might be asked what
motives induced him to bring forward his motion at the
present period, vAten he knew it could not lead to any
practiced result ; but he could assure the House that he
felt himself compelled to call attention to the extreme
easeey and suffering of the working classes. He con-
cluded by putting his motion in the hands of the Chair.
Mr. WILLIAN'S had not intended to take any part
in the debate, but b e was unfortunately too well acquainted
with the misery veld starvingcondition of the industrious
classes of this country to allow him to hesitate to second
the motion. He was well aware, condemned as the
House was to Cea.43 its existence at an early period, that
no practical resultcould be arrived at, but still he thought '
it right that public attention ahould be fixed upon the sub-
jeete The cause of the distress of the millions of the pro-
ductive classes of` this country was to be found in the ex-
cessive taxation imposed on them. More than half the
wages of' the werking men were taken from them in
taxes paid to the State, and they were taxed to nearly
an equal amount by the landed aristocracy in the shape
of Corn-laws and other taxes imposed on the necessaries
of life. He believed that if an end was not put to that
state of things it would be impossible for them much I
I°l4o to somFete with foreign countries. Manufhcturois
were progressing in the United States, in Switzerland,.'
and in Germany, where the price of provisions scarcelv-
eeceeded one-half what they cost labourers of thi s
country. He must say, however, that when he saw th a
propositions put forth by her Majesty's Government ea
relieve the people of the country from one of the most
oppressive. taxes to which they were subject—immely,the
Corn-laws—when he saw the manner in which the
measure was rejected, it led him to believe that there was
no feeling in the House to aflbrd relief to the working-
ahetses. His Hon. Friend came from a district that was
suffering in common with every other portion of the
ceuntry, and that suffering he (Mr. Williams) believed
ked been increasing during the last two years, and at
the present moment there was no hope or expectation,
aat that suffering would cease. He was sorry to say
that Reuse by decisions, had produced a deep impres-
Lien on the working-classes of the country, that they
tentitl hope for no relief from legislation. The conse-
quence was that discontent and disaffection prevaileti
smoag the workinet-classes. He was sorry to believe!
that that discontent would goon andinerease to a frightfur
c::teilt. They could not expect to see men unsurpasseli.l
cny nation in the world in skillet industry, yet unable
to euepart their families in a state of contentment. Unless
eomething was done to improve their condition, le
locked forward with great apprehension to the safety or
property, and every thing else in the country. They had e
heard great many causes assigned fbr the unfor-
tunatc state of things that existed in France,.
.(luring the Revolution. Most historians assigned.►
it to the pressure of taxation, which the peoplee;'
evere unable to bear, and which taxation was imposed by-
''l: e aristocracy, who were themselves free from taxation-
lc was the same in this country. With the exception cif:
a very _.nail amount, the whole 52,000,0001. now levied •
-on the people was levied on the middle and industrious
classes of this country, because it was levied on articl
rieczssary- -for their consumption. It was true the high n-
-4.e!ssse:.: paid taxes on those articles, but they paid mu,
less in degree, in many instances less by 100 per cent-,
inasmuch as the taxes were laid on the value and not on
the quality of the article. The aristocracy, who had the
power of making laws, had managed to free themselves
from the burdens which they imposed on the community
large. The tax paid by the people through the Corn-
law: alone ,ixceeded in amount all the taxes paid by the
Ineone-I interest put together. He would not, however,
trerioess htrther on the attention of the House, as he was
;.ell aware that no practical effect could follow from the
n. otion which he undertook to second.
HINDLEY said that it was because he had felt
ths. the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bir-
* •
itf,•hain could not be attended with any practical effect
that AC had given notice of the motion which he had
placed ~.irron the papers of the House. But at the same
time, tha,igh the motion could not lead to any immediate
result, he n.as convinced that in the country at least it
would be attended with important consequences. The
- Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) had on a for-
mar occasion brought forward a motion which would lead
to a speedy dihsolution. lie saw two parties striving for
power. Ile was anxious before the struggle came on to
assert on behalf o! the working people the principle that
taxation ought to be laid ea in such a way as should be
satisfactory, fair, and just to t!'ze industrious classes of the
community. The present mornstut more particularly
called for an investigation into the cletunistances of that
clam. They had heard the statement of his Honour-
title Friend the Member for Birmingham. He would
not now allude to the subject further than to
Louie. as a proof of the great distress existing
at Manchester and elsewhere, that the property to which
his Hon. Friend the Member for Salford had tte other
evening alluded, as having cost 120,000 L, had since he
had aiven notice of this motion been sold for 26,000/.,
being one-filth of what it cost.—(Hear, hear.) It would
IA useless attempting to excite the sympathy of the
House, if the House had not in its power the means of
relieving these distresses ; ?tut it was in the power of the
House to relieve them ; nay, the House had itself been a
main cause of them, by the prac,`ical injustice it had com-
mitted in continuing the present system of taxation,
'which pressed unequally and unjustly' on the middle and
lower orders of society. Now, could tihe Government of
a country be considered in a state tef safety when
it was known that the taxation of the conettry was re-
gulated, not according to the principles of justice, but ac-
cording as certain class interest preponderated more or I ess
in that house? The Hand-loom Weavers Commission had
seated in their Report that the Government of this country
ems in the hands of a small minority of landowners, who
reasessed the whole of one House and the greater
part of the other, and that the Government of
a in inorl ty could only be safe while it was
popular,
and could only be popular while it avoided the
appearance of selfish legislation. They must all remem-
ber that in 1833 Mr. Cobbett had called the attention of
the House to the inequality of the stamp duties. The
Chancellor of the :Exchequer of that day had promised
that the abuse should le rectified. Had that been done ?
What was the present state of those duties ? On con-
veyances of the value of 10/. the stamp duty was 10 per
cent., on those of 50/. value, 3 pee' cent., and on those of
2,000/. value 1 per cent. On mortgeages of 101. value the
duty was 10 per cent., and on those of 2,0001. the duty
was only 6s. per cent. Whence the groo inequality in
the duty of conveyances and mortgages of 2,000/: ? Why,
because landed proprietors seldom wanted to dispose of ,
their estates, but often wanted to raise mortgages on
them. Again the stamp duty on bills of 101. was to
per cent., on bills of 100/. 4s. per cent., and on those eel
10,0001. ettd. per cent. On receipts the duty on 10L, ss.
per cent., on 201., ls. per cent., ant, on 10,0001. lid. per
cent. Now as the three-fourths of the stamp duties
were collected on bills below 1001., could anything
more clearly show the monstrous injustice which wa
committed on the middle and lower classes of society?•
Let them recollect that of five millions able-bodied men,
four millions were unrepresented in that House, and it
was, therefore, doubly the duty of the House to protect
their interests. But if they took advantage of the power
to exteect more than the fair share of the taxation from
the persons who were unrepresented, it was adding in-
justice to.insult. If he were to ask any Member of the
House if the shilling of the poor man ought not to go as
far as the shilling of the rich one, he. should at once re-
ceive for an answer, undoubtedly it should. But what
was the fact. He had applied to a grocer to furnish him
with a list of the articles furnished by him to a poor
person and to a rich one, and the result of it was, that
while out of a weekly expenditure of Is. 73d. a poor
washerwoman paid 81d. duty, having only :Sid. value of
goods, the rich man, upon a weekly expenditure
of 16s. 2d., paid only 3s. Bi-Ed. So that while the poor
person only got eltd. value for his shilling, the rich
man not teid. value for his shilling.—(Hear, hear.)
Was that a state of things that could be continued with
safety to the State ? If they did not do justice to the
industrious poor it would be in vain for them to expect
happiness or peace in the community. Of all the injus-
tices inflicted on the labouring classes that involved
in the present Corn-laws was, he thought, the greatest.
He expected that the discussion on the Corn-laws would
lave taken place. He thought that after the debate on
the Right lion. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) motion it
would be in the power of Government to bring forward
the discussion, but on mature consideration he saw
from the difficulties in which the Government were placed
—he saw from what the Right Hon. Baronet had said,
that ao new business ought to be entered upon by the.
Goeeen:nent—that after the vote which had been come
to they ought to finish the business of the session as
50015 as possible, and to appeal to the country as to the
measares they proposed. He regretted that the discus-
sion had not taken place, and it was for this reason that
he regretted it, that it ivould be in his opinion better
for all classes in' tereted in the question that the discussion
sEhsoet4 placeptaokssele
in the Mouse rather than out of doors.
resorted to to raise a
means,nPlacards, pamphlets, &c., were
. Theo
nutery against any attempt to
alter the Corn-laws
?n. Member here read an
extract from a pamphlet bearing out his statement, and
then .went on to say that a greater fallacy was never at-
tempted to be palmed on any society than that of the

assertion that the poor were not interested in the aboli-
tion of the Corn-laws. No greater advantage could be
conferred on the poorer classes than effecting such a
change in the system as would ensure a steadiness of
price. At present the landlord might defraud a tenant
who was about to take a farm and did not understand
the system of averages, and by exhibiting to him the
list of averages returned to Parliament. It was not the
farmer, but the speculator who pocketed the averages
returned to Government. The Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site o 14,..t to admit that it was for the
interest the farmer in making out his lease
to have some arrangement made to insure a steadiness
of price. It appeared to him (Mr. Hindley) that it stood
to reason the more the means of production were ex-
tended, the more likely were they to have a steadiness
of profit. If the county of Buckingham alone were to
supply the market, you would not have steadiness of
price, nor would the farmer of Buckinghamshire derive
much advantage. The same observation applied to the
plan of confining the supply of the market to England
alone. He would now trouble the House with some
facts. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, the price of
corn per quarter was 41. 14s. 9d., 4/. 4s. ld., and
3/. 13s. In the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, the price was
2!..165. 2d., 2/. 4s. 7d., and 2/. 13s. sd. per quar-
ter. Then trade was good, and the labourer
was content and happy. In the years 1829 and 1830
corn per quarter was 31.65. 3d., and 3/. 4s. 3d. Then trade
was in a deplorable state. In the years 1833, 1834, and
1835, the price of corn varied from 21, 12s. 11d. to
1/. 19s. 4d., and in the years 1833, 1839, and 1840, corn
was sold, per quarter, at 31. 4s. 7d., 3/. 10s. Bd., and
3/. 6s. 4d. In those latter years trade was in a most
wretched and deplorable state compared with that of the
preceding years. That as merely the progress of
cause and effect. If therlook away from a man the
money he would spend in clothing, manufacturers must
meet with but a slow demand. But the evil to the la-
bourer in the manufacturing districts did not end there.
It was not merely that he was unable to provide him-
self with clothes, but in manufacturing districts inge-
nuity was put upon the rack. Every proprietor was
intent upon reducing his expense by doing away with all
superfluous hands. He joined wheels together, and he took
every possible means of lessening the number of
of hands, and thus a large number of persons were
thrown out of employment and obliged to look to the
precarious snbsistence of charity. Individuals had fre-
quently applied to him in a most distressed state in those
manufacturing districts, stating that their employers
were obliged to couple wheels together, and thus put
them out of employment, and that they were often twen-
ty-four and forty-eight hours without tasting bread.
Now, if corn were brought into the country from abroad,
it would enable them to overcome all difficulties
by increasing the supply. The census of 1831
proved that there was little diminution in the num-
ber of persons employed in agriculture. His (Mr.
Hindley's) opinion was that do what they might they
would not have a diminution in that class of
labourers. The great injustice done the labottring
classes was first making them poor and then punishing
them for being so. He (Mr. IL) was for doing away
with the Poor-laws and amending the Corn-laws. Both
sides of the House seemed determined to adhere to both
laws ; but those who upheld both laws were like persons
who tied a man's hands behind him, and then whipped
him because he could not earn his subsistence. Up-
wards of forty millions sterling had been spent on rail-
ways. Had those millions come from the landed interests?
Let those gentlemen who sat on railway Committees
answer the question. Had they not found that those
millions came from the commercial interests, and that
the only part the landed gentry took in those schemes
was to squeeze as much money as possible out
of the pockets of the persons engaged in railway
speculations, for the land sold for the line of roads ?
He thought the landed gentlemen were making but a
poor return to the manufacturers when they then refused
to let them exchange their manufactures for corn. He
(Mr. IL) thought the country had a right to know
from the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
whether he intended to better trade, to continue the
Poor-law, and abide by the present system of Corn-laws ?
—whether he would have a sliding scale or a fixed duty ?
It was but right that the Right lion. Gentleman opposite,
the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham), who was
acquainted, no doubt, with the intentions of the Right
lion. Baronet, should tell the House what they intended
to do. If that Right Hon. Gentleman's party were to
come into the enjoyment of power, and bring forward
measures in conformity with the views which .he (Mr.
IL) had put forward that night—however lie might
direr from them on their general policy—he should
give them his decided support. Party spirit had
been said to be of great benefit to this coun-
try, but he confessed that he did not enter into that
sentiment. He was afraid that in maintaining they
were Whigs, Radicals, and Tories, they sometimes
forgot that they were iinglishmen.—(Loud cheers.)
lie wished the love of country prevailed over the love
of party, and to see the great object of the House to
promote the happiness and well-being of the great body
of the people. He said they could not do injustice to
to the working classes without producing injury to them-
selves. The surplus population of the agricultural districts,
which had been great in the manufacturing districts, on
the distress of trade and ruin of manufactures would
return to their own birth-place, and become a charge
upon the land, and then neither by immigration, emi-
gration, or by the New Poor-law, would they bring back
England to her former state of prosperity.—(Hear.)
Sir F. BURDETT said, with respect to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham, lie could have no
possible objection to it, except it could be supposed not
to express views which its promoters had in view. Every
gentleman partook in the sympathy that was manifested
for the manufacturing distress that prevailed ; all they
wanted was some one to point out to them a remedy for
the evils complained of. At the same time he had rea-
son to complain of members of that House coming down
and making the sort of speeches they did, conveying in-
vectives or insinuations against the upper classes, and
representing them as bloodsuckers of the poor.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the proper course for these gentle-
men to have adopted would have been to have moved
for a committee to inquire whether the distress they com-
plained of was capable of immediate or any relief. The
Hon. Gentleman had brought this question into a very
narrow compass—he stated all this distress and the evils
accompanying it resulted from taxation. He could not
believe that taxation could have any such effect, but if
it had it was a matter that ought to be inquired into.
But these matters ought not at all to have been mixed
up with this great question of the Corn-laws, which
seemed to him to be made the pith of the question. It
was called a great monopoly, but there was no country
less burdened with such monopolies than England, and
it happened that during the last three years under the
operation of the existing Corn-laws a great deal more was
imported than previous to the passing of the Corn-law of
1815, when the trade was free. It was a great delusion on
the people at large, to make them believe that all the
distress existing was to be attributed to the monopoly of
the landowners. They should look at the causes that
produced that distress, such as the stagnation of trade,
and the markets from which our manufacturers were
shut out for want of protection by the Government of
this country. We had lost all our trade with Poland—
(Ministerial cheers)—with Central India since the affair
of the Vixen, and we had also lost our trade with Hol-
land. for want of due
_protection from the Govern-
ment. He did not believe that the manufacturers
of the country were so ignorant of their own interests as
not to know that it depended upon the agricultural in-
terest as its parent, without which it could have no exist-
ence. If they destroyed the landed interest, the conse-
quence would be that they would have a poor and meagre
manufacturing interest. The strength of government
was founded on that of the agricultural interest, and it
was this that had made England the first country in the
world.—(" Oh, oh !" from the Ministerial benches.) lle
said it was the wealth and stability of the agricultural
interest that had mad eEngland the first count! yin the world
'The great trade of the country was that which was car-

tied on between the town and country, and the foreign trade
was slight in comparison with it. He did not consider
this as a question of a Corn-law at all. It was a ques-
tion of administration of the country. Ministers were
driven to their last shift, but the people of England
comprehended it, and would not be deluded by so mani-
fest a bubble. It was absurd to speak of a bread-tax,
because the tax was not paid by the consumer.—(lroni-
cal cheering.) Foreigners who brought corn into this
country paid a tax on it, because it could not be other-

%vise aarratted ; but it was he who paid the tax, and not
the consumer.—(lronical cheers.) He thought that if
there was free trade of any kind, it should be all free
trade—(Cheers and laughter) _and he should be happy
to see it, because he was one of those who was
conviuned in his own mind of the advantages that would
be derived from free trade.(Cheers and laughter.) But
this was matter, of consideration, and not to be handled
rashly, since they ::94.1 gone on so long in a course of
protection. He thought it was most absurd in a mann-
facturiug country like this to lay taxes upon raw mate-
rials—(Cheers)—and that if there was any part of the
industry of the country that should be protected from
burdens it was this portion of it.—(Hear, hear.) To
revert to the Corn-laws he denied that there was any
protection to the landed interest at all.—(Cheers and
laughter.) If he thought so his opinion ought to be in
deference to that of a large portion of his consti-
tuents, and he should vote against them. When he
was member for Westminster, his constituents were ap-
prehensive of a shop tax, but he pacified them by show-
ing them that the tax would not fall on Cho n, but on
their customers,7-(Loud cheers and laughter.) He
thought this subject ought not to be made- a political
Matter of, but be considered in a peffeetly calm and un-
impassioned way, and he most sincerely thought the
Ministry had incurred a very great responsibility !)..Y their
conduct on the subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said lie confessed that when the
Hon. Baronet rose to address the House, he felt more
than ordinary curiosity to know what were his senti-

ments, because it was now many years ago since
he had heard the Honourable Baronet expresss
any opinions on matters of trade, and because he
remembered the valuable assistance which the Hon.
Baronet had given, when the representative of West-
minster to those who opposed the present Corn-laws—(Cheers?)—and also the support which he had given to
the measures of Mr. Huskisson, in the most unqualified
manner, stating, at the same time, that his own opinions
were decidedly in favour of free trade, and that lie was
prepared to go any length in support of those opinions.
—(Cheers.) But he (Mr. Labouchere) confessed; that
after listening to the Hon. Baronet with the attention he
deserved, he was at a loss to understand what were the
opinions that he entertained on these subjects.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Baronet said, that on these matters
he must bow to the opinions of his constituents in Wilt-
shire ; but, at the same time, he appeared as if it were
impossible for him to forget that he was once the
representative of Westminster, and therefore he
gave one half of his speech in support of
the doctrines of free trade, and one half in
support of those of monopoly. (Cheers.) It was
not unusual in that House to argue during one half of a
speech in support of one side of a question ..and the ether