The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-27 00:00:00

second discussion of the question in the present Session ;
and there are now the representatives of one million and a
half of the population, representing at least two-thirds of the
community, anxiously waiting outside to hear how you
dispose of their prayer.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear. ")
Again, in 1838 it had been said in debate that the Corn-
aws did not press upon the manufactuting interest—thati t
was of advantage to that interest, along with all the
other interests of the country, and that that interest did
not complain. Now mark the result of that assertion
Before the session of 1839 commenced every Chamber of
Commerce in the country had assembled, and drawn up
their petitions against those laws—every manufacturing
town bad elected their Delegate. They assembled in this
city, and they implored you to hear those important facts
which they had collected. How did the House deal
with the prayer upon that occasion ? You admitted the
facts—you stated that they bad reason to complain,
that they were distressed, and that they had rivals abroad.
But you said it was a general question, a question which
rested upon general policy, and you further stated that the
working classes were not with the petitioners, and that it
was merely a selfish manufacturing question, and what was
the result? Ido not believe that there was a single town
in the Empire, in great Britain, at least, where the work-
ing classes did not meet and petition this House
for the purpose, at all events, of placing upon record
their opinion of the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
And although they may never pray this House again_
although they may never meet upon this subject, at least
they will have placed upon record their sense of the in-
justice and cruelty of these laws. And what has been the
result of all the agitation and discussion on this sub-
ject? Why, that all the pretences on which the
system rested have been thoroughly sifted and
examined, and that there is hardly a mechanic
in the country who is not familiar with those
arguments which you have brought forward in
favour of these laws, and who is not pre-
pared with their refutation. Sir, I have listened
to the arguments used in this House, and I have marked
the debates, and I find that all the pretences and reasons
for these laws, are to be summed up in some three or four
phrases. And if I allude to them now, it is only for the
purpose of notifying them to the public, and in the hope of
warning persons from repeating them. What is the sum
and substance of the arguments in favour of these laws ?
First, that the high price of food obliges high
wages to be given to the working classes,
and that the people are interested in these
laws. Next, that the high price paid for food
begets profitable customers to the manufacturers, and that
therefore they arc interested in these laws. The next is,
that it is part of the system of the country, that when a
system cannot protect itself it should be protected by law;
and the last pretence is that it would be unwise to depend
upon other countries for a supply of food. Now, Sir, I
ask any person to look through all the discussions on this
subject and they will find all the arguments comprised in
one or other of those pretences. lam extremely glad that
these things have been put forward-_I am glad that these
discussions have taken place; it has awakened the public
attention to the question as to how it bore on the condition
of the working classes ; it has directed their attention to
subjects which they would be disinclined to attend to under
other circumstances, and it has led to a deliberate inquiry
into the truth or fallacy of these things. But most espe-
cially am I glad that it has been pleaded in favour of these
laws that they were for the benefit of the working classes,
for this has induced a careful inquiry into their operation. it
has led people to examine whether there was any truth
in the statement of a connection between the high price of
food, as produced by these laws, and the happiness, and
contentment, and comfort of the poor. I ask, Sir, what has
been the result of that inquiry ? It has been, that a greater
mockery of their misery could not have been devised or
uttered by any person than to say, that the high price of
food has been productive of anything but sorrow, and mi-
sery, and wretchedness. I should be sorry to think what
conclusion it would be necessary to arrive at with respect
to the working classes; but with respect to the
agricultural labourers, it is impossible not to conclude, and,
in my judgment, he is worse off now than he has ever bees
before. That lie has been worse off these last eighteen
months than he was immediately before ; and I think the
agricultural peasant is considerably deteriorated in his
condition, as compared to what he was three centuries
back. Ido not state that without authority. I refer to
the deliberate and calm opinion expressed by Mr. Hallam
on this subject. Mr. Hallam, after inquiring into the
history of ale labouring classes, says he is obliged to come to
the conclusion, that notwithstanding all the improvements
mule in machinery, and the additions to the comforts of
the people, yet that they arc now less able to procure that
which is essential to their health than they were a century
ago. I will quote his very words. Ile says--" I should
find it difficult to resist the conclusion, that however the
labourer has derived benefit from the cheapness of manu-
factured commodities and the inventions of machinery, he
is much inferior in ability to support a family than
his ancestors were three or four centuries ago. I know
not why some here suppose meat was a luxury seldom at-
tained by a labourer—doubtless he could have procured as
much as he pleased, but from the greater cheapness of
cattle, it seems to follow that a more considerable portion
of his diet consisted of animal food than at present,
It was remarked by Sir John Fertescue that the Eng-
lish lived far more on animal food than their neighbours
the French, and it was natural to ascribe their supe-
rior courage to that eircumsonce." I think, Sir, we ought
not altogether to overlook the condition of the la-
bourer at this time, for we are judging
of this question by the agricultural classes,
and I find that this statement of Hallam corresponds with
the statements of other writers. Arthur Young has a paper
upon the annals of agriculture, in which he states the condi-
tion of the labourers of Suffolk, after a survey in that county,
and having regard to what wages could command of the
necessaries and comforts of life at that time, as compared
with what they were able to do last year, no one could
avoid coming to the conclusion that the labourer was better
off forty-five years ago than he was at this day. It is within
the power of every person to make this inquiry and to learn
what is really the condition of the labourer whatever
money wages he may receive, and I defy any person to
come to any other conclusion but that he is ill fed, ill
/ clothed, and ill housed. I made some statements
to the House on a former occasion with re-
spect to the labourers in a particular county,
which an Hon. Member disputed. I instituted an inquiry
immediately after the discussion, and I found that I had
rather understated than overstated the privations of
the labourer in that county.—Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I stated then what I must now repeat—that in the agricul-
tural counties of this kingdom the young and unmarried
labourer barely gets 7s. a week wages, and that a married
labourer with a wife and children frequently gets but 9s.
a week, and never more than I is. We know that when,
by a Committee of the House of Commons, a deliberate
inquiry was instituted into the operation of the Poor-laws,
it was found that a labourer must spend 7s. 6d. a-week in
flour for bread, and when you consider this you may judge
of his condition, while he receives but 9s. for the ex-
penses of living, clothing, and house.--( Hear, hear
and cheers.) But perhaps the most astounding statement
that has been made on the subject, is with respect to the
manufacturing classes, and I have a right to refer to that
statement, as it was made since the last discussion of the
( question, and even within the last two weeks, in a pub-
lication which has proceeded from a Society that has
just been instituted, for the purpose, as it says, of
protecting British agriculture, but as we collect from its
manifesto, of preventing a repeal of the Corn laws. The
statement I allude to is contained in that paper, patronised as
it undoubtedly is by a certain portion of the nobility, gentry,
and clergy, that the object of the manufacturers in seeking
a repeal of the Corn-laws is to lower the wages of their
men. Why, Sir, I should like to know if that be uttered
in ignorance or deliberately, with the knowledge of its being
untrue. Is it possible that these parties can have
inquired into the condition of the people of the
manufacturing districts ? How can their wages be
lowered more than they are at present ? How is
it possible they can suffer greater distress than they do at
this moment ? Why, if the manufacturers were ready to
lower the wages of the poor, they could not find a more
convenient time for doing so than the present. Have
those gentlemen who have put forward this manifesto,
which will doubtless be read by thousands, ever read
the Reports of the Committee which were appointed to
inquire into the state of the hand-loom weavers ? I be-
lieve that not half a dozen Members ever dipped into the
books. But what do we find there ? We find those
people amounting to eight hundred thousand of our
fellow beings and our fellow subjects, calling without
exception for a repeal of the Corn-laws as the only remedy
for the evils. But then we are told by the Society for the
Protection of British Agriculture that the master manufac-
turers seek for a repeal of the Corn-laws in order to lower the
rate of wages.—(llear, from Sir C. Burrell.) I hardly
know how to explain that cheer ; but if he means to affirm as
a fact that the manufacturers seek to lower the wages of
their men, I can only repeat my question to the
Hon. Baronet, and asked him how ho thinks that the,e)
wages could be lowered ? How could we find any portion
of the people of this country who could become
poorer or more degraded ? The Honourable Baronet should
make some inquiry into their condition before he states
that it is possible they can be reduced to a more
wretched or a more degraded condition.—( Cheers.)
Let any ono who wishes to understand this question, or to
know what the condition of the people really is, read the
answers of these poor people to the questions of Hand-loom
Weavers Commissioners. If they wish to know the real state
of the question—if they are desirous of knowing that with
which they ought already to be acquainted—(Cheers)—let
them read those answers, and they will nowhere find exhi-
bited a greater degree of sagacity and shrewdness than
has has been shown by those humble men with regard to
this question. I was so struck with the sagacity and
shrewdness of their answers, that I asked one of the Com-
missioners, who is no very ardent Corn-law repealer, what
he thought of their answers, and his answer was, We were
all astonished at their sagacity. Look at what they say
when asked why they desire a repeal of the Corn laws.
They say the Corn-laws restrain the trade of the country,
and whateverextends the commerce, extends the demand for
for labour, and whatever extends the demand for labour,
encourages our industry ; whenever there is an increased
demand for labour, we are well off; and that is why
we desire a repeal of the Corn-laws. We feel
those laws are pinching us. It is true they also
give other answers ; they call for a tax on machinery
and they are also desirous of Universal Suffrage ?
but what do they say about both these questions ,
They say the Corn-laws is a system of taxing the country
for the benefit of a class, and therefore they contend, tax
the tmehinery for our benefit—the principle is the sonic
The Corn-law is a tax imposed to prevent cur getting
cheap food from better soils; therefore tax ma-
chinery to prevent the public from getting cheap
manufactures, and so help us—the principle is the same.
Or say they, you deny us a repeal of the Corn-laws, or,a
tax upon machinery. Then we ask you to give us repro-
sentation in Parliament, in order that we may ho
to legislate for ourselves.---( Cheers. ) T .shat the .at ,:c
of their reasming, and to lay mind it seerna pet fee Y
and conclusive. I have already stated that one
seeffteue,tn(t).f;.;,e,
Cc:rn-laws is to produce scarcity of food,
it,
i Lac more
generate disease, and to occasion prFrnat.ur
dtiliNi.sithsubfjdfc!ctst:
populous diA.iiets. I have made inquiri,r°_,sin' (t),u_
and have become in consequence acquainted