The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-02 00:00:00

TIM SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1840.

DUTCH AND FLANDERS MAIL.

THE HAGUE, MARCH 27.---The project of law respect-
ing the Syndicate, is said to be on the whole approved
by the Sections of the Second Chamber ; but very serious
objections are made to the 9th Article, which proposes to
make a debt to the amount of fifty millions, charged to the
colonial possessions, and producing four per cent., which lay
still untouched in the Syndicate disposable. It is not
understood for what these thirty millions are required, and
what it is intended to do with them. Some members of
the Chamber are said to have asked in the sections whe-
these thirty millions are to be employed in remedsing the
financial embarrassments for which the Government has
stated it was convoked at the close of 1839. It is certain
that the proposal will not be agreed to unless the necessity
for it shall be clearly proved.
TIIE HAGUE, MARCH 29.—1 n order to give the Go-
vernment time carefully to weigh and to answer the obser-
vations of the Sections of the Second Chamber, it is pro-
bable the sittings of the Second Chamber, and the meetings
of the Section will be suspended for a fortnight. The answer
of the Government is looked for with great anxiety, for the
Sections have shown the greatest zeal in examining the
several projects of law which concern the highest interest
of the kingdom, and have maturely weighed them.
ST. PETERSBURG, MARCH 19.—His Imperial Highness
the Grand Duke Alexander left this city the day before
yesterday, on his journey to Germany. He will stop a
few days at Warsaw.
The invalid likewise announces the departure of Gene-
ral Orloff and Kaveline to Warsaw.
MuNicit, MARCH 25.—Letters from persons about the
person of the Duke of Lcuchtenberg speak of the good
health and the domestic happinesss of the Prince. We
add, that he will visit Munich in the summer with his
consort, but the time will depend on the health of the
Princess, who expects her accouchement in May. —Alge-
meine Zcicung, March 27.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, ArRIL 1.
IPSWICH ELECTION.
Lord ELIOT brought up the Report of the Ips-
wich Election, to the effect that Sir Thomas Cochrane
was duly elected, and that Thomas M. Gibson was not
duly elected ; and that neither the petition nor the oppo-
sition thereto was frivolous or vexatious.
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. GREG presented several petitions from the va-
rious trades of Manchester, for the repeal of the Corn-
laws ; and also a petition from merchants and carriers of
Manchester, complaining of increased tolls on the Man-
chester and Liverpool Railway. The petition was referred
to the Railwa, Committee.
A great number of petitions to the same effect were pre-
sented by other Hon. Members.
Mr. HODGES presented a petition from a place in
Kent, against the grant of any further sum of public
money for the building of Churches.
Mr. CARTWRIGIIT, Sir J. POLLEN, and other Members
on the Opposition side, presented numerous petitions
against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Westminster, for the repeal of the Corn-
laws.
Mr. BAINES and Mr. AGLIONBY presented a great num-
ber of similar petitions from Yorkshire.
Mr. THE SIG ER presented a petition from Woodstock
against the alteration of the Corn-laws.
Mr. F. TRENCH presented a petition from forty-three
medical men, praying for medical reform, and complaining
of the partiality with which subjects were distributed
amongst the medical schools.
Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from Glasgow,
most numerously signed, in favour of the repeal of the
Corn-laws. We understood him to say, that the petition
was signed by as many as had signed all the petitions that
had been presented against the repeal.
Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE, in presenting a
number of petitions from Yorkshire against the repeal of
the Corn-laws, complained of the observations made by
the Hon. Member for Glasgow.—( Order, order.) The
petitions which he (Mr. D.) now had the honour of pre-
senting, were as numerously signed as that from Glasgow.
Sir C. BROOKE, Colonel Wool), and several others,
presented petitions against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. EWART, Mr. BROTHERTON, and another Hon.
Member, presented an isamense number of petitions for
the total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. PL UMPTRE presented petitions from Kent
against the repeal.
Mr. DARBY presented similar petitions from Essex ;
also a petition against the Bill for exempting union work-
houses from payment of rates, and against any further grant
to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. SH EIL presented petitions from the county of
Tipperary and other places against any alteration in the
Corn-laws.
Mr. BLAIR presented two petitions from the county of
Wigton against Intrusion of Ministers.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from 1,100 most
respectable inhabitants of Liverpool, in favour of such a
modification of the Corn-laws as might be beneficial to
commerce, without interfering with the interests of the
agriculturists. The Noble Lord also presented a petition
from Lancashire, signed by 9,000 persons, praying for a
change of the principle of the Corn-laws, and deprecat-
ing the present high rate of duty.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Glas-
gow in favour of Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and
Annual Parliaments.
Mr. P. SIC RO PE presented petitions from Stroud and
other places in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented similar peti-
tions from Gloucestershire.
Mr. G. CRAIG presented numerous petitions in favour
of the repeal of the Corn laws.
Lord CA STL E R EAG H presented a petition from the
high Sheriff and Grand Jury of the county of Down, in
favour of the present Corn-laws. Also two petitions front
congregations in Down against the intrusion of Ministers
in the Church of Scotland.
Petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws were pre-
sented—by Sir G. Strickland, 14; Mr. Divett ; Sir M.
Wood, 5 ; Mr. Wakley, 3 ; Mr. Briscoe ; Mr. Grote, 15 ;
Captain Pechell from agriculturists in Sussex ; Mr. E.
Ellice; Mr. Scholefield from the Mayor and Corporation
cf Biimiughair , and Mr. Hume, 10.
Petitions in favour of the present Corn- laws were pre-
sented by Sir John Tyrrell, Sir T. Ackland, Mr. Pember•
ton, Sir C. 'Jarrell, and Mr. T. Egerton.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented several petitions from pa-
rishes in Scotland against the intrusion of Ministers.
Col. THOMAS presented a petition from Stamford-
shire in favour of Church Extension,
Sir E. WILMOT presented a petition praying that
the Courts of Justice be removed from Westminster Hall to
Chancery-lane.
Mr. PEMBERTON presented a petition from Ripon
in favour of Church Extension.
Petitions in favour of the total and immediate repeal of
the Corn-laws were presented by Mr. Vernon Smith from
Northampton and other places ; by Mr. Ewart; several
most numerously signed by Mr. Villiers ; by Mr. Stanley
from Cheshire ; by Lord Morpeth from the Board of
Guardians of Dewsbury ; and a petition in favour of the
present system of Corn-laws by Mr. Gladstone.
CHINA.
Captain A'COURT, seeing the gallant Admiral in his
place, wished to know if any despatches had been received
from China, relative to the attack upon the Volage, and if
so, whether there would be any objection to have those de-
spatches laid on the table.
Admiral ADAM said that despatches had been received,
and that there would be no objection to lay them on the
table.
Captain A'COURT then moved for the despatches in
question.

VACCINATION BILL.
On the motion that the Order of the Day for the second
reading of the Vaccination Bill be read,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that as the House was
anxious that the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton should
bring on his motion relative to the Corn-laws at as early an
hour as possible, he would propose that the Bill should be
read now a second time without discussion, and that the
debate should be taken upon a subsequent stage.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the Bill contained so many
details that were objectionable, that he should propose the
postponement of it to some future day. It was of the
greatest importance to the health of the country, and he
hoped it would not be permitted to pass the second reading
without discussion.
Mr. SHAW agreed in the request for postponement, as
the people of Ireland felt the neces,ity of some change
with respect to the qualifications of medical practitioners
in Ireland.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM accordingly postponed the
Bill till to-morrow.

CHINA.
Mr HE RRIE S wished to know why the China Com-
mittee was not appointed. The order for the appointment
had been some days on the paper.
Lord MO RPET H said the matter was in the hands of
the Hon. Mover of the Committee, Mr. Crawford, and
he agreed that the Committee ought to be appointed as
soon as possible.

VOTE OF CENSURE ON MINISTERS.
Mr. HUME begged to know from the Hon. Baronet,
:he Member for Pembroke, whether he could now state
the terms of his notice with regard to China?
Sir J. GRAHAM—Sir, I can assure the House it is
my earnest desire not only to comply with, but if possible
to have anticipated such a request. I should have been
prepared to state the terms of the motion yesterday, had it
not been that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs presented fresh papers on Monday having a bear-
ing on the subject, but which had not yet been circulated,
so that lof course have not seen them. lam now
placed in a very difficult situation, and I hope that I shall
not be open to a taunt hereafter of having decided on my
motion too soon, and without due information. But feel-
ing that the desire to see the terms of my motion is a rea-
sonable desire, I now hold the notice in my hand, and beg
to hand it in. -- ( Cries of " Read, read.") The motion is,
" That it appears to this House, on consideration of the
papers relating to China, presented to this House by
command of her Majesty, that the interruption in our
commercial and friendly intercourse with that country,
and the hostilities which have since taken place, are
maialy to be attributed to the want of foresight and pre-
caution on the part of her Majesty's present advisers, in
respect to our relations with China, and especially to
their neglect to furnish the Superintendent at Canton with
pov, ers and instructions calculated to provide against the
growing ;its connected with the contraband traffic in
Opium, and adapted to the novel and difficult situation in
which the Superintendent was placed."
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. VILLIE RS then rose to move that the House
should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House
to take into consideration the Act 9 Gco. IV., regulating
the importation of foreign grain. He said—Sir, in
rising to propose for the consideration of this House
the subject of which I have given notice, I beg
in the first place, to apologise to the House for
the postponement until this evening of that motion. I beg
to assure the House that it arose from a cause over which
I could have no controul : it arose from my indisposition, and
I beg to offer my thanks to the House for their indulgence.

in having given me the same advantage this evening as I
might have claimed on the night for which the notice was
given. I can assure the House that I could have
pleaded the excuse with more force this evening than
before ; but fearing there were many who expected
the discussion on this question would take place this
week, and not wishing to expose any person to incon-
venience, I determined at all events to bring it on this
evening.—( Hear, bear.) I can only assure the House, it
adds to the many considerations that present them-
selves to my mind, for most sincerely regretting that
it is in my hands to make the proposition I am
now about to submit to the House,---( Hear, hear.)
The question is now assuming a very serious aspect in this
country. It is now engaging the attention as it is af-
fecting the interest of the great mass of the community,
and whatever the House may think, it is questions
of this character affecting as they do the
commerce, the improvement, and the condition
of the people, that outweigh every other that occupy our
time in interest, and for this reason I most sincerely wish
this question were in the hands of those who could do more
justice to it, or who had power to do more justice to the
country. Sir, I had really hoped at the commencement
of this Session, that in consideration of the deep distress
which is now pervading and bearing down the productive
classes of the community—( Hear, hear)—there would at
last have been some sign given on the part of the landed
proprietors of this country, and which, in truth, govern this
country, that they would in some measure have relaxed the
rigour of this law. I was disposed to think that that which
I tun bound to consider has not been yielded to the
claims of justice, might have been granted on the
ground of humanity.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Three months,
however, have now nearly passed away since this
Parliament assembled, and not a whisper of such an
intention have I been able to learn. On the contrary, the
same note in another place has been sounded with respect
to agitation, the same taunting and ill-placed observations
with respect to the objections on it, the same complaints
of people murmuring at their sufferings, who have been
hitherto charged with indifference, and whose wrongs have
been justified by their alleged indifference ; and in this
House I have seen attempts made to procure
something like the testimony of opinion in fa-
vour of this law, but which I am afraid rather
tends to show the influence of those who have inati.
gated those petitions than they do anything like a general
opinion in favr,ur of this law.—(Hear, hear.) All I have
culled from these indications has been a determination
on the part of the class who were interested, or who
professed themselves determined to maintain this law,
that they have not altered their resolution. Sir, having
had the misfortune to more this matter in the
House before, there is a sort of confidence placed
in me, that I will not suffer it to slumber, and on
this ground I cannot suffer further time to elapse without
asking the majority of this House, who came to a decision
last Session—without imploring this House to review the
ground on which they decided. This ground I conceive
to be, that this law to which I am now attempting to
draw the attention of the House is working well—
that it has satisfied the purpose for which it was
enacted—and that it ought to be maintained.—( Hear.)
I think these ware bold conclusions to have come to last
Session. I think it will require still more courage to repeal
them. I will therefore state some of those facts and ar-
guments which have led use to an opposite conviction, and
which makes me believe that those laws have worked
ill---( Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear")—that they
have caused and are still causing great loss and suffering
to the productive classes of this country—( Hear, hear)—
and that they now cast on the community at large a fearful
addition to those burthens which it is at all times compelled
to endure—( Hear, hear, hear) ; and if, Sir, I were
to state another consideration that now prompts
me to press the matter on the House, it
would be, that I do not believe that a day has passed
since our last decision on the subject that either from per.
sonal suffering or from greater intelligence in the country,
fresh converts have not been brought to the advocacy of
the repeal—(Cheers)—while I do not believe that one
single human being could be produced who being either
indifferent to the law before, or opposed to it, is now a con-
vert for its continuance. I deeply regret the importance
that must be attached to these considerations. 1 fear it is
far greater than will be attached to any new facts or argu-
ments that can be adduced, for I cannot persuade myself
that unless there was a conviction on the part of this House,
and of the other House, that either very great ignorance or
very general indifference prevailed on the subject, those
arguments that are urged in defence of the law would be
stated, because we have those who take a predominant part
in those discussions, deciding not only that
those laws are not an evil, and laws which
are necessary, but that there are positive advantages
resulting from them. We are thus called on for proof—
we are obliged to establish that an abundance of the
essentials of life is preferable to that dearness and scarcity
which deteriorate the condition of all. Why, Sir, consi-
dering how the negative of this proposition is supported by
the experience and conduct of all mankind, it seems to me
something like wasting time and mocking the sufferings of
those whom we are sent here to serve and protect. to enter
into discussion on such a subject. But, Sir, a task is im-
posed on those who arc to argue the question, and the mo-
ment is certainly favourable for the purpose, for I cannot
think that it' those who maintained these laws on former
discussions had been aware that their statements were to
follow so closely on the heels of events which gave them
so complete a denial, that they would have uttered those
statements on the occasion, and I could almost hope that if
it had been thought that the result of those laws would
have led to the distress at present existing in the coun-
try, the decision would not have been what we know it was.
However, Sir, I am not going to deny that there is great
misapprehension on this question, and that a great deal of
mystery has been artfully thrown over it, which puzzles
many, and that at this day there are thousands who do not
view it in its true character. I will therefo:e proceed to
discuss it with all the coolness that is due to a question re-
specting which there is so much dispute. I shall, as I have
on former occasions, revert to the object of the law, and to
the avowed purposes of those who proposed it. The ob-
ject I take to be so far to limit the quantity of foreign
corn imported into this country as to raise it to maintain
the price of the corn grown at home. I conceive that to
be the purpose and intention of the present law.—( Hear,
hear.) The policy of such legislation belonged to the
prevent century, and we now live under the third
legislative enactment, for the purpose of accomplishing
this object. In 1804 Mr. Western's Bill passed into a
law, Next we had the law of 1815 ; and we are now liv-
ing under the enactment of 1828. Each of these laws
was passed for the same purpose—to keep land in cultiva-
tion and to keep the people in employ meat. To each of
these laws the same objection applies, that such policy was
not defensible on public grounds—to maintain a par-
ticular soil in cultivation, and to maintain a par-
ticular place, might not be reconcileable with the
interests of the whole people, and that such prin-
ciples were calculated to mislead those who relied on
them. The justice of those objections is now matter of
history. Mr. Western procured the enactment of his Bill
on a statement that thousands of acres would go cut of
cultivation, and that a proportionate number of the pea-
santry would be thrown out of employment. Now, Sir,
I believe I state the fact, that after the enactment
of that Bill it never came into operation. The ports
were never closed, there was no restraint upon the importa-
tion of foreign corn, but so far from the land being thrown
out of cultivation—eo far from the cultivator not receiving a
remunerating price,the value of land was raised 300 per cent.
We then passed the law of 1815, and the object of that
law was to make the community pay for its food at the
price which it had reached during the war in a depreciated
currency, and that for ever.—`Hear, bear.) I have a
right to say that that was the deliberate intention of the
Legislature, because there was an Hon. Member at that
time in this House whose eager and able exertions on that
occasion to expose what he called the iniquity and injus-
tice of the law excited considerable attention, and he di.l
make a distinct proposition that if such a law were to
pass, that it should not exist beyond the time when we
should restore our currency to a more sure basis—the time
we should resume cash payments. I need not say I allude
to Mr. Baring, who has since become Lord Ashburton.
Loud cheers.) He made that proposition to
the House, but it was rejected. S:r, it is no longer
matter of question that that law was a failure in every re-
spect. It failed to give profit to the producer—it failed to
give plenty to the people—it failed to maintain steadiness
of prices, and it failed even in that which we might have
expected it would have succeeded in, namely, in giving
wisdom to those who projected it. It was introduced
amidst the curses of the people—it seems to have expired
without more favour frern its friends. And in 1828 its
failure did not seem to be ascribed to the purposes which
it sought to obtain, but only to the means which were
adopted for its attainment. It was thought still that it
was possible to fix the price at which the produce could
be sold, and to secure the cultivator the price which he
expected. It was only considered the means had not
yet been discovered by which that object should be at
tained, and it was in 1828 that the discovery was thought
to have been made, and the scheme of a sliding scale sug-
gested for meeting the wishes of the agriculturists ; and I
take it we are now to consider whether this scheme, which
was devised in 1828, has had success or not. There are some
who think that it has worked well—( Hear, hear, from a
portion of Conservatives)—that it has accomplished every
object intended, and I hope they will prove their case.—
( Hear, hear.) I certainly am of opinion that it has only
verified the predictions of every evil that was likely to
attend it, and I think I can show it has done so.—( Hear.)
I do not think the public require much information on the
subject : but they are watching this discussion, and I trust
that they will consider weil on which side truth prevails.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I consider the present law as a
complete failure, and when I say so, I refer rather to the
objects which were avowed, than to those which were not
avowed, but which probably were intended. I allude to
these objects, the benefit and protection to British agri_
culturists. I consider it has failed in that, though I
am not altogether prepared to say that it has
failed in increasing the value of land.—( Hear, hear. )
But, Sir, it is most important in this discussion that we
should observe the distinction which exists between agri-
culture and the ownership of land.—( Cheers. ) The two,
Sir, are perfectly distinct from each other ; although, be-
cause in some things, perhaps, they may seem to agree, yet
in many
dea sscs
aoe
nnntt
eei tier
spes oda i
rntyht sac
that
nhasel
eyl
q udei
theirffn ee rea,
ofr
ga nu dm thisetnhst ces
eai
mnd ofl
age
vaaot
agree-
s
rsr e
coo-ff
Inheentla,wha,
the landowner were equally applicable to the cultivators.
Sir, there is no more necessary connection between the
agriculturist and the landowner than there is be-
tween the owner of a house and the business which
is carried on in that house. No one would think
of confounding the owner of the house with the trade
which was carried on iu it ; no one would think of con.
founding the merchant who carried on business with hie
banker, of whom he might borrow money. There is the same
distinction between them as there is between the manufactu-
rer and the person of whom he purchases the raw material.
Their interests are perfectly distinct. I should not endea-
vour to impress this plain distinction so much upon the
House but for the arguments which have been urged
in support of this law, and which had con-
founded these two objects.—( Hear, hear.) I would
ask any person to point out this connection I deny that
there •is necessarily any identity of interest or of pursuits

between the agriculturist and the ownership of land.
—( Hear, hear.) The landowner need not necessarily
ever see his property—he may be unable to distin-
guish one kind of agricultural produce from another,
he may live abroad, and know no one connected with the
land but the person who collects his rents for hint. The
distinction between the agriculturist and the land-
owner is so distinct and so obvious that I should
not have thought it necessary to trouble the House
on the subject, but for the confusion which constantly
arises in arguments on this subject. We constantly hear
the agriculturists talked of as if under that term were in-
cluded the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer; and,
therefore, as the interests of these classes respectively are
perfectly distinct, it is necessary throughout this discusion
to keep in view the distinction that exists between
the landowner and the agriculturist.—(Cheers.)
If
the agriculturist were omnipotent with respect to laws,
he could say what he might have for laws ; he would,
doubtless, say what any other capitalist would say, give
me such laws as will insure me the return for my capital
which I expect—as will enable me to make my calculation
certain, so that I may not engage in any undertaking
as to the result of which there can be any doubt. That is
what any other capitalist would say, and the agricultural
capitalist would doubtless wish to see such a state
of the case. (Hear, hear, hear.l The present
Corn-law holds out to the agriculturist a promise of this
kind. It promises him a certain price for the produce of
nis capital—lt promises him a certain snpply—it engages
he shall have a certain produce from:his land—and it seems
to assure him that he shall have the price which he expects,
and the question is, how far this law has realized those as-
surances that it seems to have given to the capitalists.
The first fact which I have to observe upon is, that since
the passing of this Corn-law there has been every
variation in the price of produce. The agricul-
turists have experienced great distress, and this at
last seems to me to lead to the conclusion, that this has
not averted the evil the capitalists expected. The next
question is, whether the law has not caused the evil? And
I think that can be demonstrated, and collected, and
proved from agriculturists themselves. It seems
to me that it has been a great omission in the discussion
that has taken place upon this subject, that they have not
referred to the evidence collected by this House from agri-
culturists themselves. The fact is that there have been
few discussions on this subject, as those who had been
opposed to the law had been eager to show its deformities,
and little attention was paid to the evidence ; but there
has been a great body of evidence collected in this House
under circumstances which compel us to give credit to it,
to which the attention of the public ought to be particu-
larly directed, and I do say that if there is any j
conclusion at which a candid inquirer can ar-
rive from reading that evidence, it must be
that the Corn-law has been a positive evil to
the agriculturists; it has grossly deceived them, and
caused the greatest distress. This is an important con-
sideration, because there are many persons in this country
who are not blind to the injustice of this law, as it appears, ,
or blind to the evils it produces.—( Hear, hear.) But
what some dread is the influence which, they say, the
change of this law will have upon those who have laid out
their property in land. It is important, therefore, to have
tile opinion of to cie persons who occupy the land. At
the risk of wearying the House at this moment, but con-
sidering, the importance of the question will be my excuse, ,
I shall advert to some of the evidence collected during
the year 1836, when a Committee was appointed
to inquire into the distress of the farmers.
The first person whose evidence I shall revert to, is named
Ellis, a farmer, from Leicestershire, and his evidence I
shall cite, because it bears distinctly upon the question. •
The Hon. Member then read the evidence, from which it
appeared that at that time (1836) prices had not latterly
been affected at all by the Corn-laws, because they were
then living upon their own growth ; but if the question had.
been put to him two years ago, he should have answered
that the farmer would have been better had the Corn-
laws been repealed. His opinion was, that the high
duty gave a fictitious value to land, and gave the
farmer an expectation of something coming to his relief
which could never arrive.—( Hear, hear.) He further
stated that his opinions were probably not in accordance
with those of many other individuals with respect to the in-
terests of the landlord and tenant being the same. Up to 3
certain point they must go together; the good condition
of the land was to the interest of both landlord and tenant,
but it was not so when the question was high or low prices.
lie did not think it was the tenant's interest to have high
prices. He thought the country around him was much
better when prices were low or moderate.--
( Hear, hear, hoar.) He certainly liked low prices
much better himself when his expenses were in proportion.
—( Hear.) I beg (said the Hon. Member) to ask the
attention of the House to the fact that these laws are main-
tained for the interest of the farmer, because We
are precluded from saying that they arc kept er
for the interest of the landlord—therefore I think
this evidence to the point. He then read the evidence
of another farmer (not named) who said the farmers
in Essex had not now so much capital as they had 00,11
years ago. They had been parting with it to their laa,".
lords and others whose charges were excessively hi
he
He had decidedly not got any profit from his farm
for Oa
last three years, owing to the low price of whett.t::.
( Hear, hear, hear.) He considered the prices too
wheat
w
Great numbers of the farmers had failed. The next fwas asked, what was his chief comislaint ? and the _et.
arr
e m
per
was, the low price of wheat. That is where the fergi,:as
looks, Sir, for the remedy of his difficulties--when he so,
to pay large sums for rent, and is getting his corn Nadi 3
'
market—he finds the price nearly absorbed by espense
The next, a farmer from Essex, said capital among the'
farmers bad much diminished. Ilis difficulties had ariseth
he said, solely from his wheat crop—all other crops had
done well, but the wheat crop had ruined him. Hie die.,
tress was attributable be said, to the low prices of wheat,
and the high rent he had to pay. There had been
greater consumption of wheat, though the price was high.
The farmers often had been paying their rent out of
their capital, instead of their profits. (Hear')
In answer to questions put to him, another farener saw,
" There were often discussions among farmers on the sub"
ject, and it was clearly the opinion among those who.
corn rent, that they were not beneficial, but directly" 1"v
reverse, because it induced many to give more than the.
could realise by the price of corn, expecting that, by 017
Corn-laws, the price would be kept up. The Corn-laws
cliappointed their expectations, because it led them to gi%
higher rents than they would have done. From whatid
have experienced, I am disposed to think a change w°l.l
be beneficial to the farmers by reducing the scale at which
,c
foreign core is imported. I think she Core-laws run .tnea
price too high in seasons of scarcity. They run it up i!i_k
way prejudicial to the interest of the farmer. I hul,f.
them prejudicial to those who pay money rent, becausete',
it were not for the Corn-laws they would not have contrac
for so large a rent. They did so merely from a cods cal'
culation, as to the effect of the Corn.laws.”4
Honourable Member then proceeded to read the eve'
dente, as he stated, of a Scotch farmer, which apile,,r,„,
so as to be verbatim that of the last witness, when
Hon. Member seemed to intimate that this evidence Y'tlo
the same which had already been read.) He could assu'e
the House he had not read this evidence before, but them
was a coincidence between the opinions of the Scotch an ,
and English farmers as to the injurious tende'r_Yo
of the present Corn-laws.—( Hear.) There was a quest'
put by Mr. Handley, who asked witness what was his r'
acato
son for supposing that a fixed duty would be preferre
the present system? The answer was, that under the netircer
sent laws the prices were unduly run up, and that,the
a fixed duty, would not take place. I will not trouble
a c
house with reading any more extracts from the evide,ncte
to which I have referred, but I venture confidently to
that it is impossible to read that evidence, without seen
all complain of the operation of the law. Sir, I tl'in;co
may particularly address this opinion to the House, w
I see you presiding in it, because it is impossible to Per,ling
your very able address to your constituents, without se'
that you arose from the perusal of that eviderece,
„nr to
titer, that you paid such attention to it, that you ea-",c,oar
the same opinion on the subject. You seem, from' 'idea
address, to have been strongly impressed with thcrs
the present law was injurious to the present occef)',,,a.;
of land, and that it led them to cultivate their fat'-
in a manner injurious to themselves ; and that tbec
bad been deluded by their reliance on the effieu,cl;9,
that law. I shall now refer to a passage in your aaw:epet
which is as follows:—" That the tendency of the Pre—tee
law is to raise prices artificially, and thus to expose to.
agriculturist to the necessity of affording a supply fatten'
than the public demand ;" and " that it diverted his atitat
teen too much to the cultivation of wheat alone, 50 tout
too great a quantity is thus brought into the marketed
the
prices arc kept down ;" and further, " that it is bey,oll you
reach of the laws to keep up the price of corn. f tee
thus, Sir, endeavoured to convince your constituents of
necessity of art alteration of the law ; and I think Is rot
shown that the interest of the agriculturist is not diuct;noll
from that of other capitalists. It depends, is truth, arhis
his own experience, his own exertion and industry, 80, nee
fitness for his occupation, more than upon any asssh`a wn
which he could receive from the law. think hatehates.-n° 9
that those who depended on those eircunesta-fe
and not on the law, had not been unsileees-fuo
whilst those, on the contest. who de coded
the law, and not on these'Y' circu stanPc 111
experienced great distress. ter is it mto beescledfuctlcie
from that evidence that during the first eight yearsi°e eed
btyrirteliT.t°d_ "101;
existence of the present law, the farmers exPer„" /1 the
great distress and disappointment, and found none 0- aire
promises made realized. It now becomes us to i goo,-
what has been the effect of the law under other eirc
re-
stances. We find, from the evidence to which I ils:treas,
afenrdretdh,att,hat havingthe fdairsmcoevrserletadvetheeixrpeerrrieorr,,ced great di. cor-
rect it. They attempted to recover themselves by
ing their capital from the cultivation of wheat ibt'efose
country, in order to obtain that which it seems was itat in
promised them, the best remuneration for their cer,.ibeeti
other products. We have now to consider what h
iffOr3 t"C
the consequence of their withdrawing their capital and
cultivation of that which is the food of their
evidencecountr'
devoting it to other purposes. We find, by the in 00.•
given on this inquiry, that some farmers state, thatne.fio
sequence of the low price—one-fourth—sortie saY, f is3l3
and a few say that one-sixth less wheat was sole' s j;50..
than had been sold before. They found themselvue.iey'sLiora
pointed ; they withdrew their capital from the c coo-
of wheat for the purpose of supplying markets in ws"'euenee
try, and we have now to examine what is the con,e jie law
to the community, and what is the operation o!s"scid io
under those circumstances. We find less wheare "p U•
1837, and we find in 1838 a deficient harvest. ,L
B.ne'what
lation has increased, and we have now to exam',
_rvest
the effect of the law bee been under a deficient ea
mos
and here I cannot help reading a few lines from,
cats con.
intelligent work published lately, simply for the la, w ope-
tained in it, in order to see in what way the Corn-La_d tee
rates with respect to the interests of the communittib%"t the
interests of te ariculturists. We have see" Leo or-
distiTss of the aggriculturists has been and how it `,, is 85
rated, and we have now to consider what its (Vera° be work
prices rise. I allude to Mr. Tooke's last work r workt
The lion. Gentleman then read an extract from ormoug
referred to, to show the effect produced by weeks had
and sudden importation ofeererri, vrhich in four tor,r ;
redue,d the pike froin 775. a quarter tu 60 fartiicrs
he rise to 775. had been for the benefit of