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

EVENING MITION.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he hoped he should not
have to renew the discussion on this question. He hoped
the other House of Parliament would give their assent to
the Bill which had been sent up to them, and the second
reading of which had been fixed for Monday. He should
move, therefore, that the order be discharged, and that Mr.
Sheriff Evans be ordered to attend the House on the 6th
May, by which time he hoped the Bill would have passed
into a law.

Mr. FRE S H FIELD would not oppose the discharge of
the order, but be should have been better satisfied if the
Noble Lord had not proposed to renew it. He hoped the
Noble Lord would take an early opportunity of stating to
the House what were his intentions with regard to the
persons at present in confinement.—( Hear, hear.)
He thought a forbearance had been shown on this subject
the Noble Lord and his colleagues could scarcely have ex-
pected. He hoped some leading Member of the House
would take an early opportunity of taking
.the sense of the
House upon it ; if not, he should feel it incumbent upon
him to do so himself.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL it Iva ordered
that the House, at its rising, should adjourn till Monday.
Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. HORSMAN presented petitions
from the county of Lancaster. against the Corn-law:.
CHINA.
On the motion of Mr. A. Smith, (for Mr. Craw-
ford) the following were appoin:cd the Committee
on Surrender of Opium in China :—Mr. Crawford,
Lord Viscount Palmerston, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Charles
Buller, Mr. Herbert, Sir George Staunton, MT., Glad-
stone, Mr. Colquhoun, Sir George Grey, Mr. Hogg,
Mr. John Elliot, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Parker,
Lord Viscount Sandon, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Sumer-
ville, Sir R.,bert Harry Inglis, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr.
Edward Buller, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Horsman.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS.
On the Order of' the Day for the adjourned debate being
read,

Mr. BR OTH E RTON said, having presented petitions
from 20,000 of his constituents for a repeal of the Corn-
laws, he wished to say a few words. It was unnecessary
to state that great distress prevailed in the manu-
facturing districts. In Manchester, Stockport, Bolton,
and other places, the mills were very generally
working short time, or had stopped altogether.
The state of destitution in the manufacturing districts in-
deed, exceeded what was ever known before. He might
state that in Manchester it was found on inquiring that
1,950 families, with 8,000 persons included, earned Jon an
average ls. sd. a-week for each. Now for all this dis-
tress there must be a cause. He was free from attribu-
ting it entirely to one cause. His opinion wax that there
were several causes. One was the over-populated state of
same districts: another he believed was the Corn-law; ; and
a third was, the state of our relations with America,
owing, perhaps, to the attempts which had been made to
force up the price of the raw material. Let it be recut-,
lected that our population increased at the rate ef half a
million sunnily. Where could all these growing millions
he provided for? Could they be provided for by limiting
the supply of food, through circumscribing our markets,
and thus diminishing the sources of employment for our la-
bour? How could the people be expected to pay the taxa-
tion if they were deprived of the means of supporting the
expense of using exciscable articles? On all these consi-
derations, it was important that the state of the Coro-
laws should be taken into consideration. In general it was
believed that the cause of the present depressed state of
trade was our Corn-laws. He objected to those laws
because he thought them unjust, inhuman, and impolitic.
It was unjust to legislate for one class of the community at
the expence of the rest. Could it be pretended that the
Corn-laws were founded on the principles cif justice ?
( Hear.) In his opinion it wa. an abuse of legislation to
make enactments fur the benefit of one class to the injury
of another. The rights of industry were as sacred as the
rights of property, and they ought therefore to he as
firrrily secured.—( Hear, hear.) Now what was the prc-
sre t Corn-law passed for? Why, to secure the resits,
of the landlord, and to throw the burdens of the
state upon the people. It hed been calculated that this
unjust law had thrown a burden of from 20 to 40 milliosse
upon the rest of the community. Now Ise would ask why
a law should be passed to protect 30,000 ban:lnserters at the
expense of twenty-fine or twenty-six tnillions of tit'
other inhabitants of this country ? The law operated
most cruelly and harshly upon the poor man, for it made
him pay one-third of his income towards the taxation of the
country, while the rich man did not pay mere than one-
tenth. When they considered that by the New Poo;-law
Bill the poor were thrown upon their own resources, and
were called upon to provide for themselves, he thought it
unjust that the poor man should be deprived of the mearis of
disposing of the pro-Wee of his labour at the best market.
He could not understand how any man supposed he was
doing his duty is supporting a !aw of that kind; on the
contrary religion taught us that it was our duty to "feed '
the hungry."--( Hear, hear.) And was it consistent with
that duty to pass a law which prevented the hungry from
getting food ?—( Hear.) Was it not a religious duty of
those who made the laws to enable the poor man to obtain
food by the labour of his hands, instead of making
him depend upon poor-laws, or upon die assistance
of the rich? He was of opinion that every man could and
ought to be placed in a situation to earn a living in ass
honest way by his own exertions.—( Hear, hear.) In his
opinion the Corn-law W 2.3 most unjust, impolitic, and im-
moral—nay, they were inhuman, for it was inhuman to
raise the price of food.—( Hear, hear.) He contended
that the law was far from beneficial to the country.
It was impolitic to the merchants, injurious to every
class of manufacturers, and destructive to the artisan. It
could not be otherwise than prejudicial to the farmer, and
he did not see how it would benefit the landlords
themselves in the long run.—( Hear.) It had con-
verted into rivals those who were the best cus-
tomers of our manufacturers. The consequence Ives,
that our machinery was exported. and our artizans emi-
grated, and in a short time foreign competition would
compel our manufacturers to demand protection by prohi-
biting the importation of foreign goods, in order that
they might keep the home trade.—( Hear, hear.)
What they complained of was that their competitors on the
Continent were enabled to obtain their food at a cheap
rate, and they were obliged to compete with them with their
hands tied behind their backs.—( Hear.) No doubt the
energies of the country were such as would enable it to rise
over every obstacle; but the House should recollect that it
was from the manufacturing industry that the taxes were
ailed, and if they were crippled it would eventually terminate
in the ruin of the landed interest. All the manufacturers
wished was, that the labouring classes should have cheap
food, and it was unnecessary for him to refute the mis-state-
ment that when food was low wages fell. On the con-
tarary, experience had shown that when the price of food
was low, the labouring classes were much better
off. At present they had not the means of purchasing
a sufficiency of food, and the amount paid in the pre-
sent year for corn, as compared with 1835, was 30
millions, which had been put into the pockets
of the landowners. It was absurd to say that one
class was independent of the other. They were all
mutually dependent on each other, and countries, in like
manner, were dependent on each other. tie contended
that God had given to man the fruits of the earth
for his sustenance, but human legislation stepped in and
said they should not enjoy all the fruits of the
earth—that they should, my enjoy the fruits of a
part of it, and then they took care to tax them
for the fruits of that part which they enjoyed.
At the time corn was at the lowest price in this country
land was not thrown out of cultivation. We had to de-
pend on foreign countries for tea, sugar, cotton, and
other articles that we could not do without; and there-
fore we should not be more dependant upon them
if we had to rective from them the article of food. If there
was but a free trade, everything would tend to the benefit
of all classes of the community. It was not for the inte-
rest of this country to export corn, but we employed
our population in manufactures, and in the shape
of manufactures we exported the produce of our country;
and it was, perhaps, in allusion to that that a gentleman
stated last night it was not for the benefit of Ireland
to export its corn. Now if manufactories were esta-
blished in Ireland, and the Irish people could
' consume provisions on the spot, and export manufac•
tures to other .countries, it was quite clear that
the agriculturist would gain much more by selling
it to customers a: home, than they could possibly do
by sporting their produce. Everthing the manufac-
turer used had a tendency to benefit :he landowner.
It was the interest of the landowners to enable the manufac-
turers to extend their trade=to take their manufactures to
neutral markets—and that was to promote the prosperity of
the country. It was stated by the Hon. Member for Not.
tingtiatzishire (Mr. G. Knight) last night, that the only
reason why the manufacturers advocated a repeal of the
Corn-laws was, that they might grind down their wail:-
people, and that they might increase their own fortunes at
the expense of the landowners ; and that they ground the
bodies of their work-people, and neglected their souls.
But when they considered the number of bankruptcies
which had occurred lately, and when they saw the number
of people who were out of employment, they must be
aware that the manufacturers were suffering under great
distress. The manufacturers had no protection, and why
should the landowners ask for protection? They wanted
protection merely that they might increase their rent be-
yond what they ought, and extract the difference
had been said
by outiftalisde
industry of the people.—( Cheers.) 1%
by the Hun. Member for Nottinghernshirelastnight_of the
town in which he resided? What had been the conduct of
the Noble Duke to whom that flou. Gentleman had al-
luded, and of the inhabitants of that town, to those lecturers
who had been sent out by the Corn-law League, to prevent
those lectures from enlightening the minds of the people
Why that Hon. Member must know that that Noble Duke
to whom he had alluded had doubled his rents within the
last year.—(" Nu, no.") He knew it as a fact that the
rents of the Worksop estate had been doubled within the
last year.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now was protection to be
given to enable the landlords to double their rents '—
t could
ds
tot state
( Loud cheers.) It was contended that
agri-
cultural labourers would be reduced to a I
by a repeal of the Corn-laws. He thoueht(tchit;eyoe
be much lower than they were at prescntb
withstanding a Noble Duke had said in another prcal)e—eritll°lsati-..t
he was astonished labourers should be discontent
for a repeal of the Corn-laws when they were ears.aningo.,sUicii
wages as 9s, a-week —(Cheers.) Manufac
would take upon himself to say, were nut in tit erell'asfiit of
paying the labourers in this manner when they were in a
prosperous condition. In his opinion all classes of the
cotnmunity would be benefited by a repeal of the Corn-
laws, trade would be extended, the revenue increased, and
employment found for the great mass of the people, and
Cause them to be satisfied, when they knew that they
were living under just and Neal laws. If the Corn-
law=_ were repealed, instead of the sun Of Britain being
set for ever, he was convinced it would rise and shine
with meridian splendour, and that the people would be
contente> . prosperous, and happy—( Ghee's- )
Mr. VERNON said, in regard to the agitation of the
parties calling themselves the Atiti.Corn-law ASSOCiati3n
in the town to which toe Hon. Member had alluded, he
must say that the Noble Duke who had bean referred tes
had not one single house in the town, and had
influence'
no .
.a
e-
ence with the inhabitants beyond that leg itt
which resulted from the respect and love with which
lies
was regarded, and the high character which he held ; anti
if the' facts were true that the Noble Duke had doublet':

his rents, it did not say much for the opinion of the
people against Corn-laws, that with a knowledge
of that a Corn-law agitation could not bo got
up among them. In this particular instance
vast improvements had been effected in the estate, and
only one person had declined resuming- his tenancy on the
increased rent. Now with regard to the general question,

he was oot at all anxious to be one of tho—se vil;o made

log pamphlet. filling speeches.

Els timiught this ono of

‘_, . •
those questions in ;hiali it was much more easy fur the
assailants to make out a plausible ease than the defenders.
He was one of those who did not like change for the sake

of change, and he thought the onus Of establishing
the necessity for the change in this ease, lay
upon those who called for the change.—(Hear, hear.),

He would not go into details, but he would inquire into.
the 'natives which the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
attributed to those who were opposed to the motion ; 0.:11
be thought it would have been well had that Hon.. Mem-
ber confined himself, and interested himself for thosiwhose
peculiar organ he s-: s, and have /et those alone'who were
convinced that they were better off as they were, than thoy
would be in the position ifi which he wished to place term.
The lion. Member had quoted long extractsfrom evidence
given before the Comolittees on Agriculture of 1833 and
1836, but he hardly cane :1 the evidence 'no read fair. Oue
page of evidence he had read over, twice, which consisted
of the greatest twaddle he had ever heard, and proved that
he was not at ail a competent judge of the matter. The
abj,.etion he took wits, that he was seduced by the high
price of grr.in to take a farm at a higher rent than the
event justified. Now, if that bed been extensively the care,
it might be a good argument for sometiine", but
I •
as it were notorious that the fact was otherwise, although
he would n:t deny that there might be seine isolated cases

of that kind, )et no man could say that the farminiin-
terest during the last twelve years had been in a suffering
or depressed state; on the contrary ; or whence came the
numlter of petitions from almost the whole of the agricul-
tural interest, front almost the whole of the farmers in the

country, who with one voice cried out to be left alone with
such protection as they at present enjoyed ? It was natu-
ral that at the time of the Committee some farmers
were suffering, and it was equally natural that
they should come forward and state their sufF.:rings.
He well remembered the evidence of a farmer from Ber-
wick before that Committee. That man said there was
no distress in Berwick. Other Scotch farmers said much
the same. For the Scotch were a sensible and sagacious
people, and they knew that, although there was a de-
ficiency of Nv he at, that was compensated by other produce.
The lion. 11errib-,?r for Wolverhampton, in connecting his
argument with the present financial difficulty of the coun-
try, said that the people were prevenled from puretiasing
excisable articles,,becauie the Coru-laws compelled them
to lay out the greater part of their earnings upon the
firs:. necessary of life. In order to prove that, the lion.

Niernl4er Ctfr. %Tillers) made it appetir that in the years in,.

which col-it ivas at the bighetice, the exisumPtion of
so::p was at the lowest; trie revenue paid upon soap in
18:3Z.4 being;upwaids or a minion. ,ylicieas hi 1839 it fell

to 740.0061.. But the fact was the very contrary. In-
stead of a million, the duty upon soap, in 1838, was only
670,0001. ; and in 1839, the dearer year of coin, it
amounted to 740,000/. In the total rtvenue there was also
an increase in the years in which the price of corn rose.—
(Bear, hear. j Ile thought it right to make these expla-
nation,, as the statements of the Lion. Member for wob.

verliampv!oi oil this subject were calculated to mako
a great impression in the country.—(Bear, hear.)
He was aware that thcr,.: were many collateral questions of
political eCononly which could not be taken into calculation
in making these estimates ; but it was important when

statements were made, and arguments founded on them,
that the facts shoull 1):: rightly Mated as an indication and

example of how mucll value should be set upon them

had ascertained that lest year there was the same quantity
of eoap menufactured, exceeding the quantity manufactured
in the peeseut veer by only 2,0001. or 3,0001., which was
a roof that the consumption still remained the same.
A4ain, he lion. Mentlee- fur Wolverhampton had ex-
pr^=sed surprise the; every frith Member should advocate
zfee,e lawn, and be stated that the est= of wheat from
Ireland hid dinanislied eeery year. Now be 1-. ad theer-
tained that in the year previous to die new Core-luw, Ire.
land exported 4.R3:04 gem tees of threat, while
.I,st year
she experted :,42,000 quarters, showing that the quantity
of wheel: eeperted was progressing. Another stetemeet
made by the lion. Member for Wolvichampton was, that
the average wages of able-bodied men in this country
fur mated between ss. and ss. GA. per went:, and he men-
tic :led no instance in which the Magistrate and Doard of
Guardians had rated the wages from 5:. to sa. 6d. That
-might have happeeed with regard to some idle and
useless men, whom it wan not thought fit to take into the
workhouse ; but he would appeal to every Member who
had any keowledge of the agricultural districts, whether
it was pusaible to believe such a statement as that of the
Hon. Mee-abet- for kVolverhanipton.—( Hear, hear.) The
lion. Member stated that he bad-made inquiries upon the
subject, for the purpose of having the fact verified ; but
of whom did he make the inquiry?--not of the Board of
Guardians, but of the Editor of a Newspaper in which
that tact was inserted.—( Hear.) Nobody doubted that
the Editor of the Newspaper might have received that
in:imitation. To his knowledge, many labourers only re-
ceived SA. a week, simply because they would do no work ;
end the question tea ~ oliethcr they should have that in
the house or out of the house? Ile (M-. Term)) had
Dever given less than l2e a week to any body, whether
'married or unmarried. and some 'of the farmers in his
neighbourheod bad said that they wondered that he could
met own to work for that, as they were giving from 13s.
to 15s. a week, in consequence of the high price of corn.
He had told them be was very glad to hear that, but his
labourers had sonic advantages in respect of their cottages,
and so on. As the Ceairman of the. Board of Guardians
in his own district, he knew that to - be the state of the
inertlx of Nottinghamshire, and ho believed it was the state
of the 'adjoining nistricts. In the South of England
lie was aware that wages had not been to high.
No doubt the wages of labour in a country ruled by Poet--
flaws would sympathise with the price of corn. It was
well for manufacturers to deny this, but it was certain, if
the labourers were suffering in the degree urged by Mem-
!bees on the other side, they would have recourse to the
workhouse, where they would receive a larger amount of
sustenance than was shared be any country on the face of
the earth. He thought he was not doing them injustice
fat saying they endeavoured to bring-everything available
to bear upon their case. But these gentlemen said all the
.distress they represented as existing was owing to this
law. Ile had in his hand a pamphlet giving the average
;price of corn in 1829, 1831, and 1836, as 635. 31,
t64s. 3d., and 66t. 4d. If the Corn-laws were the occa-
sion of distress, it might have been supposed to have ex-
isted at periods when there was so much excitement as those.
This agitation was the consequence of the excitement re-
specting organic changes, from which we had been suffer-
ing during the last few years. Chartism was another con-
leg aenee of it. Now of what had the Chartists corn.
pla.aned ? Had they said they were starving ? No such
thieg ; and notwithstanding all the lecturers who bad been
nt among them they had not joins(' in this agitation.
T hey nod had sense enough to see that their own grie-
ve nets were not the grievances pf the master manufactu-
re rs. Ho had no hesitation in ascribing the distress under
wleich the manufacturers were new suffering to the state of
the, American markets and the monetary system of that
coontre, which was only now emerging from its.
ditlieuftiea ; and as if that were not enough, we
must go to war 01:11 China, a country which
.consumed largely of British manufactures.—(Cheers.)
It is impossible that they could command a steadiness in
tls e price of an article which was affected so much by the
wieather and other circumstances over which they had no
ee ,ntrol. If they once pu the home market out of colti-
vf .t.ion a season of dearth might occur, and they would have
tc contend with the whole of Europe for every quarter of
corn imported, and no regulations which could be devised
would prevent a rise in price. It was said that these laws
deprived "tile people," as they were called, of bread, but
look at the population of Ireland—he ventured to assert,
that out of the eight or nine millions there were not more
than two millions who ever eat any meat. Again, look at
Scotland. In that country, he believed, not above one-
third of the population used meat. In England, if the
paupers and other classes were included, at least one-
fourth of the population were in the same position. That
state of things certainly could not be ascribed to the opera-
tion of the Corn-laws. He denied that the result of thin.
present system was calculated to produce ruin to the lauded,
interest ; but if such was the case, be was ready to incar
the real onsibility of maintaining the present system. Now
it was oseerted that the bread tax, as it was called, put ,
money auto the pockets of the landowners, but he denied
that—the extra price, if there were any, was returned
again into the ejaculation of the country, dirl was
expended in the purchase of other necessaries and
luxuries. The bread tax, then, operated merely to change
tho direction of the employment of labour, and on that
account it could net ba fairly objected to. tie contended
that the advocates of the repeal of these laws had laid no
fn ound before the House to show that the population had
been materially altered in its nature and ciretuustanoes, by
nwohtawt rbabstgilledbread
nttaexd.
the ailidiehacipopnyfesasgerdictuillatut plie dold-
inntlotiethhewsegsusaplirde,atal
golvteatrefdo,uru-ntieftelristaoinf
,tah.oucetouuantitnray:
Pchilet°tand.
tap mad down condition of the manufacturing population—
(Hear, hear)—who were dependent upon the suceases of
cons mercial speculations, upon the winds, and iu some
last; :aces, ass in the ease of the operatives employed by
the limn Member for Oldham, upon the benevolence of
individuals. That Hon. Member, than whom he believed
thee a was Lot at more benevolent individual in the House,
having,,, opposed the Poor-lews, dismissed, as be had aright
to
all his labourers. The motive of the lion. Mem-
ber might have been a good one, but that immense mass
Or persons would have been thrown into a state of utter
dttsritution bad it not been that the lion. Member was
reee &led that they should not suffer for the experiment
wela cell be was malting. It might be shown that their com-
ma roe was not flourishing at all times, but they must prove
that at all times, and under all circumstances, it was in a
ate of decay, before he could consent to a repeal of these
laws. lie Nay not there to contend that corn should be
se wee, or bread dear; but c'car bread was, after all, but
a ti.elatiye tern:.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever might be said
by the Right lion. Gentleman the President of the hoard
oe Trade with respect to these laws in produciag
etuations in price, 'oe thought that a document,
wiiich had lately emanated from the Board of Trade,
„t„iteue the average prices of coin in various pricer,
rata a sufficient answer. These statements must be taken
a general way ; within certain limits of correctness ;
and it appears trem them that that country which was
atateri as being notoriottely infamous for fluctuations in i's
prices, more nearly approeched uniformity of price than
nest any other. lie admitted that to this extent a ease
bad Leen made out by the Anti-Core-law party ; they
might aver it was unjust by any laws to distribute wealth
to ono elate.; in preference to :bother; hot, as a set-
off tes that etlrresiior, he could net leave out of mind
thexonsiler.e.ion of the enormous mass of vested capital—
; of taxed capital, which lied been irrevocably embaiked in
the cuitleation cf the so:', in consequence. of the repeated
Acts of Parliament Which had been passed upon this sab-
i jest. If the Cora-law was repealed, all that capital would
be lost which it seta; intended should produce fruit, not for
I Gue year, but for fifty years, and there would be a greasy
breach of faith with the existing, generation. Nit