The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-13 00:00:00

ness might have an opportunity of righting themselves. As re-
garded the trade in corn it appeared that article, which had always
been the subject of nibbling interference by the Legislature of the
country, but not for the benefit of the farmer, the labourer, or the
manufacturer, but to keep up high rents that the landowners might
support themselves in luxury. At one period in the last century
a bounty was given for the exportation of corn to the amount of a
million and a-half, for the benefit of the agriculturist, because
more corn was grown than could be consumed. After that period
there was a duty of 641. on importation, and when corn was at 445., the
bounty on exportation ceased, and the Axed duty came into force.
The object of landowners was to increase the prioe of a commodity
which was one of the necessaries of life, merely because the number
of these customers had increased, and the quantity of land culti-
vated remained the same. Why such a monopoly was neither
more nor less than if 100 men were ordered to subsist upon the
same quantity of land which could only give food to 9.0. It was
said that the repeal of these laws would lower the price of bread,
and consequently the price of wages. He believed that was a com-
plete fallacy. The result would be to give some employment to
the manufacturing operative, who would consequently have more
money to lay out in food, and in that way even the corn-grower
would be benefited. The manufacturing interest had outstripped
the agricultural, and was now the leading interest in that country.
—(Cries of " No, no.") Gentlemen might say no, but destroy
the manufacturing interest,and where would the agricultural interest
be? It was well known that while the:manufacturing interest
had grown up the agricultural interest had gone down. Could they
find any where a more stupid, indifferent, ignorant set of men than
those who cultivated the ground?—(No, no.) Who was it
joined the ranks of the impostor Thom at Canterbury ?—(Hear.)
Who were the great bulk of the rioters at Newport ?—(Cries of
" No, no ; they were workers and miners.") He had endeavoured,
when out of town, to get into conversation with the agricultural la-
bourers, and he rarely found them acquainted with any thing fur.
ther than knowing how to drive their spades into the earth. It was
true that these men should be placed in a better situation.—(Hear.)
It was argued that certain lands would be thrown out of cultivation
if the Corn.laws were repealed. If they were not able to pay the
expenses of cultivation they ought lobe thrown out. Would any one
say that steam-boats should be prohibited by Act of Parliament from
going faster than sailing boats least they might throw the latter
out of employment. Such a regulation would be equally preposte-
rous with that of endeavouring to make common land pay as much
as the best land. He trusted the amendment which had been pro-
posed would be negatived by a large majority.

Mr. BOWEN regretted that the amendment had been drawn up
in the terms which had been submitted to the Hall. If that
amendment had been proposed it was his intention to have met
the question distinctly by moving the previous question, t :.cause
he differed from the motion in toto. It appeared to him the Corn-
law agitation had been set on foot by some men of large capital
Who, for the promotion of their own interests, had banded together,
and had resorted to the most unjustifiable means—unjust in them-
selves, and unfair towards their opponents. They had sent about
men who were paid for preaching their doctrines, and it was really
a serious thing that the Corporation of London should join them-
selves with men whose object, he believed, was to inflict a serious
evil upon the interests of the country. It was said that only a
small band were defending the agricultural interests. Who were
alluded to, he did not know.—(A cry of "the landowners.") His
opinion was, that every man who tilled the ground had the bread
of his labour—that universal England, except a few overgrown and
enormously wealthy men, who had procured that wealth from the
sinews of the labourers (he meant the manufacturers), were all in
favour of the agricultural interest.—(Hear, hear.) These
manufacturers had built mills, and called up a popula.
tion around them, which, but for them, would never have had
existence, and now when the trade, which a long war had thrown
into their hands had ceased—when other nations began to menu-
facture for themselves, they got up the present agitation against
the Corn-laws. The competition abroad had interfered materially
with the profits of that class. He maintained that it was the
working man in the manufactories, that was maintained on the
smallest pittance.—(Hear, hear.) What was the object of the
manufacturer in agitating this question—was it to give their
labourers more food ? No, but it was to see with how small
a quantity they would be satisfied, and then to decrease
their wages, in order to enable the manufacturers to compete with
the manufacturers abroad.—(Cries of " No, no.") The Worthy
Deputy opposite had told them that the agricultural labourers were
stupid, poor, and ignorant. Now, he believed that they were
neither stupid, poor, nor ignorant, cbmpared with the other masses
of se eiety : but this he should believe, that they were far more vir.
tuous. Let those who doubted this traverse the land on the Sab-
bath.—(Hear, hear.) Where, he weuld ask, did Burns take his
Cotter's Saturday night" from?—(Hear, hear.) Was it
from the manufacturers of Glasgow, or his own farm ?
He took it from what he saw ; he was the poet
of nature, and from nature alone he took nis subject. Let those
who maintained that the manufacturing labourer W 24 more vir-
tuous than the agricultural, go to Glasgow or Manchester on a
Sunday, where would they find the mass of the people if they did
Would it be worshipping Gcd, or perambulating the fields
ing his works, or would it be in the public house or the beer
hops, or in congregations met for political purposes.—( Hear, hear.)
rhey had been told that certain portions of the land ought to be
brown out of cultivation. He thought at first that that was
fight; but he was of a rely different opinion now ; for
,e knew that many farmers had brought land into cultivation
..hich had been considered good for nothing, but which now
ielded good props. He was of opinion that they ought not in any
ray to do away with the Corn-laws. For twenty-five years they
ad been in existence, and during that time they had worked well.
—(Cries of " Oh, oh.) For there had been less fluctuations during
heir existence in the necessaries of life in this country than in
'ranee. He was of opinion that if the law was repealed, in a
ery short time a great portion of the amble land of England would
e thrown out of cultivation, and lie therefore trusted that that
:ourt would not throw it. weight into the scale of those who were
favour of a repeal of the laws, by adopting the petition.
Mr. TAYLOR said that they had been told to let well alone—that
he Corn. laws hail worked well, and that therefore they ought to be
allowed to exist. Now, he would ask what was the well that they
were to let alone. There had been a dispute in the newspapers and
in the Houses of Parliament as to the amount of wages the agricul-
tural labourer_harl to live on. The dispute was between what was
the maximum and minimum. Wasit between Bs. and '2os. ? Cer-
tainly not, for the Duke of Buckingham, who had denied that he
had stated that he wondered the agricultural labourers should corn-
plain of having Os. a week, had admitted that the maximum was
10s.—(Cht ers.) That was just the paltry pittance of Is. a week mow.
Mr. ItaowN objected to the lion. Gentleman going on, as there
was no Court, there being no Alderman present except the Lord

;co ?

Mayor.
Mr. TAYLOR thought that if the Court was good while Mr.
Bowen spoke, it was equally so while he was speaking. He had
talked a great deal of leaving well alone, and he hoped, therefore,
he would leave the Court alone.—(Laughter.) Was 10s. a week,
he would ask, enough for a man to live on and keep a family ? He
thought common sense and common justice would say it was not.
It was the wish of the landlords to maintain the presets; Corn-
law, and not the wish any more than it was the interest of the
agricultural labourers. Let them compare things now with what
they were forty yea-ta ago. The same land that now produced 40s. or
50s. an acre, then produced only 10s. an acre ; and thus the
come of the landlord was quadrupled, while the labourer's wages
were less than they were, although he had to pay twice as much
for his bread.—(Hear.) He wondered that gentlemen should in
the City of London, and before so many connected with the manu-
facturing interests, endeavour to maintain the fallacy that if food
was cheaper, wages would be lower. That had been tested by ex-
perience, and it had been shown that wages did not fall with the
price of food. He knew the wages of journeymen printers were
not reduced when bread was cheaper.—(Hear.) He, therefore,
maintained that there was no conspiracy among the master manu-
facturers to create agitation on the Corn-laws for unworthy pur-
poses, and in order to cheat the people. A gentleman who had
spoken stated that he could not understand the question, and that
the House of Commons did not understand it. None were so
blind as those that wculd not see, and the majority of the House of
Commons had an interest in starving the poor.—( Cries of " No,
no," and " Hear, hear.") The majority of the House of Com-
mons were landlords, whose rents, as he had stated, had been
rising, while the means of the poor to maintain themselves had
been reduced.—(Hear, hear.) It was in vain to expect justice
from the House of Commons; and although he agreed,
that the Chartists had been very foolish in the means
they employed for obtaining a redress of their grievances.
yet their object was quite right, and it was useless to
petition that House for an alteration of the Corn-laws, until it
represented the people. At present the House of Commons only
exercised its powers for the purpose of robbery and oppression.—
( "Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") The conduct of the house of
Commons had been so well described by a Manchester Alderman
that for the information and enlightenment of that Court he
would take the liberty of reading it. [The Hon. Gentleman read
Mr. Alderman Colxlen's speech at the meeting of the Dele-
gates, last Saturday, as reported in " The Sun."] He was con-
vinced there was a deep feeling among the lower classes, that to
petition the House of Commons was ridiculous, and the higher
classes entertained the feeling that the Corn-laws would only be
carried by a pressure from without. That purpose could only be
obtained by a great union of all classes of the community
except those who were interested in the scandalous monopoly
It was such a union that procured the passing of the Reform Bill.
The Reform Bill was produced by " pressure from without." He
had no difficulty in accounting for the alienation of the working
classes front the House of Commons—they had found the Reform
Bill a delusion. Englishmen felt that they had political rights,
that they were entitled to a full representation in Parliament.—
(Hear.) The greatest lawyers had laid it down that the political
franchise was the common law right of the people, and Judges had
Iso held. It was the House of Commons themselves who had nar-
rowed their own foundations. Parliaments were in former times,
and according to the ancient Constitution of the country, annual.—
(Cry of " The Corn-laws.") He was speaking of what he con-
sidered the causes of the maintenance of the dear bread laws. The
" Morning Chronicle" had stated that "all that the people were in
Government and Legislation they were through the House of
Commons." Heaven help the people then :—(A laugh.) But the
people had a much broader foundation—they rested on the Monti.
ments of their ancient Constitution, which had been handed down
from their forefathers. The fact was the House of Commons, as at
present constituted, made up their minds to keep up rents et all
hazards, let the manufactures and the commerce of the nation
perish as they might. The Poor-law he considered an admirable
measure in itself—(No, no, and hear, hear)—but he was persuaded
it could not be carried into effect under the present Corn_law. He
concurred in the principles laid down by the supporters of the
amendment, but as a petition to the House of Commons was the
usual form—(A laugh)—of expressing the opinions of a public
body, he should support the original motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Le WiENCE said he thought the last speaker had risen to
speak about the Corn-laws--(A laugh)—but he had wandered into
a great variety of ether topics, which really had nothing to do with
thatie felt subject,that the
ed
House
of unreasonablycomin protracted
was thehe discussion.—(Hear.)i
1 the people could address their pets itions, unsatisordily as they
were dealt with. This question of the Corn-laws was one between
landowner anti manufacturer, not between farmer and menu-
facturer. It was a fallacy to suppose that the repeal
of the Corn-
were lower
laws would
In would lower wages. The rate of wages depended not on the
price of wheat, but the demand for labour.--(Hear, hear,
1;8 lion, viie,7 bread was higher than now, wages
when bread was lower, wages rose
to a
greater extent than bread had fallen.—(Hear.) Thelabourers
were among the best customers for manufactures, and it must
strongly influence manufactures, when the labourers had not enough
of wages as compared with the price riceof bread, to expend on other
articles.—(Hear.)
mfr andeoed,hte
s. th ul
is
eptthi tot iunggh t
oar ns
mot
onaltie ex
la
liec was not, however, for leaving corn entirely
esueuffinctireyn,ttvphrioctheewtioouni,da
rdadietise it tofid.itefedrednuttyfoooftitn3sg.fororm7sa.llwootuheldr eboein
a-
liss.poernsle of,s.
at quarter.
from
Nt hoe
twoforeign
tions could go on paying money for any article. Commerce must
ebbeieccatriroinedmoandebytoextheheacnogretilfwtl:e
wpraosdutice of countries. Another
was, they had occasioned a
drain of the bullion of the Bank of
t i,
sv,teehuraetteg,w:radeotauntlgdl
aanldiaiys
pro-
prietors ease when a sudden demand was made without preparation, and
successthattending
regarded
therefore the argument went for little,
there were no grounds for hoping for any
was not unnatural. lie believed if that Courtbu it, and this
as long as
but vigour
they would refrain from repealing those
; they could, until there came a pressure from withwoust
they must not only show they had justice on their side,,,tbpre!vstegdour
1 to act accordingly. It had been well said wonder was at
Ithe great wages paid to the agricultural labourers, but no more
than 12s. was paid any where, and the majority were paid less than
that. The agricultural labourer must provide for his family as well
!as the manufacturing labourer, and, no doubt, suffered as much
1 from the high price of Dread. One great reason urged by the Rowe
of Commons for not attending to petitions was that they were carried
but by a small majority, and, therefore, on this occasion, they should
' avoid affording them a similar excuse. No doubt a great many unjust
acts had been done by the House of Commons, hut that was no
reason why they should not petition them, for they had made many
laws oft oft) tyvhtliiceh he was sure his friend much approved; and bad as
the antendnunpltresfus
they were now, they were much better than his friend could re-
collect them to have been. Great improvement had been made
ruraernftriiottenrawteitiLuetti;
eheetys_lio(tillideatth7etore support
i Mr. VS itt.Ls did not understand the whole of the motion of his