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

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

only, who he .d been enabled to withhold their stocks from
the market ; but the sudden fall depreciated the property of
all the fare ;era in the kingdom. These, Sir, are facts
which have.. occurred. But, Sir, there is one other prin-
,ciPle which the advocates of the Corn-law have always
orought !forward in its favour—they say that it not only
secures ;a steely remunerating price to the farmer, but it
givesthe public,
oczase to the public of complaint, as it secures to
whenever necessity requires it, an ample supply
of corn. from abroad.—( Hear, hear.) Now on this sub--
fries
lat _
be
„feet I will quote a gentleman, who has paid very
g attention to the subject, and who, I imagine,
considered as an authority by all those who arc
'ries idly to a Corn-law, as ho has the strongest predilection
in favour of a Corn-law, and has proposed a higher rate of
Protection than even many connected with the land would
deem requisite. Now this is his view of the scheme of
1828.--(The Hon.Gcntleman here read an extract from a
work which stated that if the object of the present shifting
scale of duties was to produce firmness of price, prosperity
to the farmer, and a proper supply to the public, they had
signally failed; for that during their existence the farmer
bed suffered great privation, and prices had varied to a
treater extent than had been ever known; that the risk of
!ass was so great to persons engaging in the corn-trade
that their gains must be proportionate—that every fall of,
duty
was for the benefit of the speculators, and that,
consequently, their object always was to advance the price
to the utmost; that if an importation were made when the
Price you was s ees.
, there would be a duty of 205., whereas, if'
Illyeto
1e rise, 1 pricesi
svere forced up to 735., the duty would only be
P so that by forcing up the price he not only gained 6s.
but 20s. by the duty ; in all, making a gain of 265.,
1;i:1s:in fact, the duty operated as a bounty for a rise in price.
• out' si p ims the
be operation of the present law, ; it is a law that
is said to be for the interest of the farmer. The law is
n
al, y a law giving protection to the farmer, but it is
a, -Iv giving protection in a peculiar manlier, and in a
r'Y which many persons in the House are anxious to up_
°ld• It is a law, I say, injurious both to the public and
lawfarmer. Now, having examined the operation of the
upon all these points, what, I would ask, are the pros-
pects before us ? We are now experiencing the effects of two
..bad seasons, and I wish to know whether we have a prospect
of a better season this year? Some people say that we
have ; they say the sowing season has been good ; that
the wind has been in the east; and that there is every
Prospect of a good harvest. Supposing that to be
at°s what is it to the fernier, for then is the
sir" when he is suffering the most distress ?
• ‘herefore the operation of the law seems to be this,
You must either ruin the farmer or injure the public. You
cannot escape, for this vou have either the prospect of the
consumer being injured or the agriculturist ruined. That
is the operation of this Bill, and then, because we advo-
cate its repeal, we are told that we wish to destroy the
agricultural interest and convulse the country. All this is
Bfticl against those who only say this law has not worked
Fell, and that is all I want the House to say now.--( Hear,
hear.) Having, I hope, said something to show that the
agriculturist has not an interest in the maintenance of this
law,is and wishes to know who is interested, the question
then arises who are the parties interested in the main-
tenance of the Corn-laws? We'are told they are main-
tained to keep the agricultural labourers employed, and a
great horror is professed about theowing land out of era-
tivation, and we are told that wages rise in proportion to
the price of produce. It is called a labourer's question,
and one would infer from the language of the supporters
of the Corn-laws that. they exist solely for the labourers.
will this be repeated ?-1 Hear, hear.) I hope not. I
don't think it creditable. I knot, it is not, true.—( Cheers.)
ltaPPears to me almost cruel to urge it. Does anybody
believe that the wages of labourers tire increased in pro-
portion to the price of produce ?
.f he. Earl of D A RL IN GT ON. —( Hear, hear.)
‘ 11% VILLIERS—I presume the Noble Lord means to
;s',%l that to be the case. I should be glad to learn from
in,' or any other Member, that the rise in labourers' wages
ilia Proportioned to th rise in the prce of prodce.—( ear,
lisearo-) It would bee interesting tot the public to learnH it—
'eY have not received the information yet. In some
.I,lgricultural districts wages may have risen slightly, but I
42ve. yet to know that they have risen in proportion to the
71
at
the price of food ; and yet more, that they have so
thatitirl consequence of the rise in the price of food.—
(Cries of " Hear, bear.") I think it will be found
has principallyi een those labourers who were
likely to
come upon the parish who have had
1111_4. "wages a little increased. This at all events I know,
zat whereas the price of food has risen 80 or 100 per
e,cents, the utmost advance in wages has been 20 or 30 per
'nt.--( Hear hear. i But what a principle would this
establish, supposing it to be true ? for whenever the price
(_).t food rose, labourers were better off. It teems to me
that this would lead to the conclusion that the higher the
Price of food is, the better off the labourer is—on that
principle he ought to pray for famine.—( Hear, hear.)
liut how can this principle be estebtished ? Is there ono
_instance in the history of this coetotry in which the price of
food has been high in which the labourers and the lower
classes were well off?—(1-1cer, hear.) I say, on the con-
ttarY, in every case they ',lave been badly off and discon-
tented.-_( Hear.) The origin of that pauperism which was
thc object of inqui;.), sonic years ago, is to be traced to
the
period of high prices in 1797—,the labouring a en were
Feat
upon the parishes to avoid paying higher wages. So
It was in 181 G ; so it was in 1817 ; so it was in 1830, and
s° it is now,—(Hear, hear, hear.) In 1830 prices
the hi"',,, and, according to the agricultural theory,
e late 'a ~
te"
tented ji ought
the; to have been well off, and con•
• t wheas it was well known that such was
, a. discontent and turbulence, that there was not corn-
- ise security for property.—( Hear, hear.) A statement
waas made last Session that agricultural labourers
'were well off, in consequence of prices being high, and
: daat en this account the Corn-laws might be called the
protection of native industry; and a Noble Duke (Buck-
ii ingharn) at a public dinner, had stated that so long as the
labourers maintained the Corn-laws they would be well
off; but that if they agreed to the repeal of the Corn-
laws, they would bring ruin upon themselves and their
country. Now, 1 have here a statement, Sir, which I have
taken some trouble to verify, regarding the state of the
agricultural labourers in Wiltshire. The labourers there
get Gs. a-week, and one of them within the last fortnight,
had summoned a farmer at Darnford, near Salisbury, for
refusing to pay him Gs. Gd. a-week, at which the
bench of Magistrates expressed great surprise, and
well they might ; and they adjudged the defen-
dant to pay the amount, and compensate tho com-
plainant for his loss of time.—(Hear.) Then again at
Rushall, in the same county, the highest wages of the able-
bodied married labourer is 9s. a week; and single men,
though equally able-bodied, had but ss. a week. Now what
is the reason of that distinction? Either the able-bodied
single men ought to have the 93. a week, or 4s. a week
Was paid to the married men instead of a poor rate to sup-
Port the children.—( Ilear, hear.) In these districts the
agricultural labourers generally have one meal a day, and
that meal is often potatoes and salt. Sir, can it be doubted
that the labourers are against the Corn -laws? I myself
have presented a number of petitions praying for a repeal.
It is in evidence beyond all doubt that the agricultural la-
bourer is never so well off as when the prices of produce
are low. When, for instance, the price of wheat was at 365.
a quarter, the labourers were never so well off before.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) I know many think the law
Ought not rashly to be changed, and many who
admit the injustice or the law—for, say they, what
are you to do with tlee labourers ? That is a very natural
ashnuelwatth'eartythpero,inAebro feeling, and therefore it is important to
There '
ulti al.'
urers would be benefited by the repeal.
many well worthy of remark, that there never
werefi sols onerra applications for assistance to emigrate.—
'Jeer, hear.) It is said, indeed, that this will
f mrstely be a benefit to the country—( Hear, hear)—
or • ,
b shat the emigrants will establish colonies hereafter, to
e. beneficial to the mother country. And certainly if you
f will not let them have the produce of the land here, they
cs
ittneust go for the produce of the land elsewhere—( Hear,
ar)—in such a case perhaps, it is a merciful provision
thet they can go where the produce of the land will b
Thilable to them. But why should they go ?—yrs" ear. ) ,
„e ! advantage of posterity is no reason whs.; they should
u driven from the land of their birth,___(Hear.) The
, people need not go.—(char, hear:, In 1836 there was
amplee field for labour—they were able then to get employ-
ment. nt. They are driven away by high prices.—( Hear,
ear-) Yet we are toad that they are interested in the
maintennace of tar; Corn-laws I—( Hear.) One of the
i greatest curses 'of the Corn-laws is, that it makes land
daats and zamvents the labourer from obtaining any of it.
--(Hear, hear)—and the labourers are always better off
. when they can get a little land.—( Hear, hear.) Now, it
lis said that the "agricultural interests" have an advantage
in the maintenance of the Corn-laws. These " interests"
I suppose, it will be admitted, include the owners of the
land. But do they derive any advantage front the Corn-
laws ? lam of opinion that no class in the community
can derive any real advantage against the interest of the
other classes.—(Hear, hear.) The landowners, however,
do derive a slight temporary advantage from the Corn-
laws, though in the long run, it must be an injury ; that
advantage being, that owing to foreign competition in
corn being prevented, they arc able to keep up in cultiva
ton inferior soils, which otherwise they would not culti-
elAbe ; and thus they are able to raise all rents._( Hear.)
I: is evident, then, that the landowners alone are interested
in keeping up the Corn-laws-1 have already shown that
neither the farmers nor the labourers arc. Now lam not
one of those who join in the indiscriminating outcry and
uenurnsiation against the landowners as a class. There are
"rtncasg them many of great honour and high feeling.
There are some who do not think it is their interest to keep
I%p the Corn-laws. There are some of generous and liberal
spirit, who, though thinking it is their interest, yet do not
wish to keep them up.—( Hear.) Some of the best names
in the House of Lords are egainst the Corn-laws.—
(Cheering.) Still the landowners, as a body, are, I do
believe, the real obstructors of a repeal of the Corn-
la,ws• Ido not believe that our farmers throughout
tue country would object to the change if the landowners
agreed to it ; the farmers would say, " We have nothing
to do with it, if the landowners assent to the repeal, we
are ready for it; but we fear that they would expect from
us the same rent as before."—( Hear, hear.) It is ins-
Ne'tant, Sir, to fix upon the right parties the responsibility
°` supporting this law.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I ask what
ground for such a law can the landowners allege? In any
any other country but this, they mi... lit affirm that they had
exclusive burdens to bear, and that therefore they ought
to have an artificial value to land given by such a law.
.8, But can they make that statement ? Will they allege
tthhia_t_th)ere isr.any particular burden pressing exclusively upon
1. them • la ill they go into the inquiry ?—( Hear.) I be-
lieve, on the contrary, they are exempted from many taxes
thatai bear on other classes. They say, however, that by the
mission of foreign competition in corn land will be
thrown. out of cultivation. Supposing that to be so, are
the interests of the community to be sacrificed to the
cultivation of land?—(Hear hr ) Why what is that
Claim but the very one set ' hear.)
ylthe handloom-weavers
and other artisans, who cry out
—a
doing
egnai
ras,col: in cry, and are
derided as ignorant by Y'ounutfearg
Say it will displace labour.hbeeaera,usehetehre.y)
You do tax the machinery—you tax theh produee of the
better soil. You tax the produce of at which would
Come to us cheaper, and you maintain tht
laqiee for ,h, purpose
of,
~ 0,vi,,,,
~,,,,
ie.old soil in occu-
,.:.iit tell me there is any differe h i er. No one
But, Sir, before I leavc; theagriculturaleinPripaaoL'f otrbepoqtys:
isessaaaa___

tion, perhaps I may refer to that which doubtless will be
urged in the course of this discussion, in support of Corn_
laws—viz., that Iceland is an agricultural district, and that
it,„ie chiefly for the advantage of Ireland that this law
,Aield be mainteined. I should be extremely sorry to say
any thing that could offend any person connected with
that country. God knows offences and injuries enough
have been heaped upon Ireland, but I must say that of all
the shallow—of all the groundless—of all the unworthy
pretences for supporting this law, that of Ireland seems to
be the worst. Ireland 1 fifteen counties of which out of
the thirty-two actually do not produce wheat.—( Hear.)
Ireland ! that since 1832 has sent us gradually less and
less wheat. Ireland 1 where literally the people know
nothing of wheat—they do not consume it—they are too
Poo:. There is no country on earth where the landlords
take so much of the produce in the shape of rent as they
do in. Ireland. There is no country in which they absent
themselves so constantly and regularly from the roil.
There is no country that would be so materially bene-
fited by not cultivating wheat as Ireland. There is no
country that could be so materially benefited by the pros-
perity of manufactures. Whenever manufactures have
prospered in this country there has been a demand for
Irish labour. How will Ireland maintain its poor-law, if
the people of this country cannot give them employment ?
That is something for the Irish landlord to consider.
There is the opinion of every witness almost that was
given before the Agricultural Committee, to which
have referred, that wheat does not suit the soil
of that country. I trill not enter into the reasons
why, but that is the result, and \ ou, Sir, have
stated that, as the conclusion to which you arrive
in the Irish evidence, in the address to which I have re.
ferred, that when Irish gentlemen had prospered, it was
by abandoning the cultivation of wheat, and devoting the
land to other purposes.—( Cries of " No, no," from the
Conservative benches.) That is the result : therefore I
trust gentlemen will well consider the subject before they
bring forth the plea of Ireland. Ireland would cer-
tainly have great influence with me ; but when I see all
the evidence on the subject, and when I see those who
possess the confidence of the great mass of the people—
not only those agreeing in
ipolitics, but those who differ,
alike denouncing the Corn-laws as the bane of Ireland—
I allude to Mr. O'Connell, as well as Mr. Sharman
Crawford, who do not agree in politics, bet who both agree
on the subject of the Corn-laws when I see both
denounce the Corn-laws as that which makes land dear,
prevents manufactures prospering, and as that which pre-
vents the employment of capital more than anything else,
I cannot consider that Ireland can be benefited by the
Corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps, Sir, I have now
stated enough as to the justice or policy of this law as re-
gards the agricultural part of the question. What the com-
munity will expect from this discussion is to learn the dif-
ference to them whether they pay a high or a low price
for food in this country ; because, in discussing this ques-
tion with respect to the agriculturalists, I have not con-
sidered the great principle involved in the question—l
have merely considered whether it has answered the
purpose est;ich the framers of the law professed.
But theee now comes to be considered the great prin-
ciple on which any law ought to rest, namely, whether it
is for the benefit of the community at large—( Hear, hear,
from both sides of the House.) I am glad to hear the
Noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Darlington) cheer me.
It reminds me of generous sentiments uttered by him,
namely, that if he believed this law was injurious to the
community at large, he would be the first to repeal it.—
( Hear, from Lord Darlington.) I am glad to find that
many persons have during the agitation of the Corn-laws
directed their minds and attention to it ; and with respect
to the particular point to which I am now proceeding to
direct the attention of the House, I would refer to the
very intelligent and able work publ:shed by a gentleman of
the name of Wilson on the subject of the influence
of the Corn-laws.—( Hear.) Certainly, he seems to me to
have approximated nearer to a faithful calculation on this
point than any other person. He proceeds in this manner
—he takes the amount which the people pay for their food
in this country, with a view to show how much they lose
or gain by paying more or less. He takes the average of
the last seven years of the price of wheat in this country,
and he finds it to be 525. a quarter. He then adopts the
estimate which almost all persons agree upon as to what is
now the present consumption of wheat in this kingdom,
that is, 16,000,000 quarters. We thus have the precise
amount, upon an average, which the people expect or may
expect to pay for food in this country, and that is 525. per
quarter, on 16,000,000 quarters and the whole amount would
be 41,600,000/. That is the average cost of wheat which
the community would have to pay in this country for one year.
It therefore follows as a consequence that whenever the
people pay more than 41,600,000/. or less, there is a loss
or gain to the community. Hence it becomes interesting
to observe what the public have paid in past years, or arc
paying at present for their corn. The author of this work
has referred to the different prices of food at particular
periods, and I will refer to those years he has specified.
He imagines that 41,600,0001. would be the average of
what the people of this country might reasonably expect
to have to pay for their food. Then he refers to the
cheap years and the dear years, with a view to see what
the community have paid more or less :
In 1834, 36,000,000/. was paid for food.
1835, 31,000,000/.
1836, 38,000,000/.
1837, 44,000,000/.
1838, 51,000,0001,
1839, 56,000,000/.
I will take the last two years in order to make the thing
clear. In the beginning of 1838, and until the autumn,
we find the price of wheat was at the average rate at which
it has been estimated, 525. Iu the autumn it rose from
525. to 755. 16,000,000 quarters a year is 300,000 quarters
a week. Therefore in September, 1838, this country was
suddenly called onto pay 300,000/. more for food than it had
for the six months before, and if we look to 1835 we shall
find it was 450,000/. a week more, so that there was a
sudden abstraction of capital that, under the existing ar-
rangement, commerce and society might have usefully em-
p'oycd—an abstraction of 300,0001. What is accompa-
nied also with high prices of food, is a large importation of
corn, and we, a corn-growing country, are obliged to ex-
port for that corn, not goods, not manufactures, but bullion
—( Hear, hear, hear)—and therefore we have to consider
what is abstracted front our currency to pay for the amount
imported from abroad, aid that will be the difference be-
tween the amount that it was possible to pay in bills, and
that which it was necessary to pay in bullion. Well, then,
we find these two things occurring at the same time, a cer-
tain abstraction of the national wealth for the purpose of
paying an additional price for food, and a certain abstrac-
tion from the currency of the country through the medium
of exchange for the purpose of paying for that which was
not grown in this country. These are two important
circumstances in a commercial country like this.
We have to consider what results attended the great
change that occurred in the year 1838. On referring to
the same author, I find in a table that has placed in diffe-
rent columns the additional sums paid for wheat, the
amount of bullion in the Bank of England, and the amount
of deposits. Now it seems there is a close correspondence
and connection between the additional amount we are ob-
liged to pay for food which we import from abroad, and
the deposits and bullion in the Bank. of England. They are
so close that it is utterly impossible to disconnect them, for
we find, that gradually as the price of wheat rises in this
country, and that gradually as we import wheat from
abroad, that the bullion and deposits of the Bank of Eng-
land decline. —( Hear, hear.) Now the person to whom
I have referred does not confine his reference to last year,
but from 1817 up to the present time ; and it does appear,
that whether we have paid for more food here, or have
been obliged to pay for it from abroad, there has ',„ren a
gradual decline both of bullion and deposits
AOW that there
should be a decline in the bullion,
0; the Bank of England
does not seem to be extr....ordinary, because if we are to
export gold for th-
, payment of grain, it is natural that the
Bank of r agland should feel the offects of it ; but the
of the sinking of i ire deposits seemas to indicate that
the community are suffering from this increase of payment
for their food. Now, this is the opinion of a mercantile
man. The customers of the Bank, when they have any
surplus capital, pay it into the Bank. We may take the
deposits of the Bank of England as an indication of the
deposits in the banks in other parts of the country. He
says, " When money is every where abundant, the re-
sources of the Bank of England must be very great. At
such times the surplus of every man's capital rinds its way
to the Bank, and the deposits are considered an index not
of the wealth and capital of the Bank of England, but of
the wealth of the people." Therefore, we may take the
deposits in the Bank of England as indicating the surplus
capital of the country. My reason for referring to that
is, that whenever extraordinary payments are called
for from the community, it is reasoable to expect this
surplus capital would diiminish ; therefore, we find that
whenever there is a greater amount to be paid for food,
that the deposits in the country banks or in the Bank of
England diminish. Now, it is worth observing the
the connection between the diminution of bullion in the
Bank of England with the rise in the price of food, from
the beginning of 1839, till October 1839, you find a gra-
dual diminution of the bullion in the Bank of England;
and you find a corresponding rise in the price of food. Now
it is impossible to suppose that this could occasion an ab-
straction from the currency, to the amount necessary for the
payment of food without a contraction of the currency. I
ant not one of those who hold the Bank of England to
blame for every derangement of the currency, because the
Bank of England ie guided by certain rules in its conduct,
but it cannot control circumstances like these which must
operate on it ; and what I am seeking to show is, that this
fluctuation in the prices of food is the real cause of the
great fluctuations in the amount and value of the currency,
end particularly in this case, where we find that the con-
traction of the currency has immediately followed upon the
abstraction of bullion from the Bank, and the diminution of
deposits; and therefore all the evils that may be said to
follow from that abstraction, and of which the mercantile
and commercial classes have complained, may be traced to
the operation of the Corn-laws. But, Sir, the reason why
this contraction of the currency has been so much com-
plained of and remarked upon is, the effects it has pro-
duced ; and it becomes, therefore, necessary to inquire—
having ascertained that there has been this contraction of
the currency, and that there has been this rise in the prices
of food—what have been the effects upon the commercial
transactions of the country? Now if any person with any
knowledge of business, should reason on this matter, he
would naturally infer certain things from what I have stated.
If people are obliged to pay more for their food—if they
have greater difficulty in getting money—if there be less
demand for their productions, the natural consequence that
any person would expect, would be that there had been
distress in the manufacturing districts, and that home
trade would Le injured ; that people would be obliged to
consign their pods to some foreign country, and that
among the labouring population there would be great
distress. It becomes us, therefore, to inquire
whether these results have followed.—( Hear, hear.)
I have seen a return which has been made to this House,
and 1 refer to this, because / know it is not an unusual
argument in defence of the Corn-laws, to contrast the
home trade with the foreign; and you will now have an
opportunity of judging what is the effect of high prices of
provisions upon the home trade. I will first allude t, the
cotton trade in thia couenn the feels new stated prove
that there has been it greater export of manufactures, and
ess home consumption last year, than in the year be-

fore. The quantity of exports of cotton wool is etaied
to have been, in 1838, 270,00000 lbs ; in 1839,
262,000,000 lbs: t being a deficiency to the amount of
7,000,001 lbs. The quantity consumed in our home
manufacture was, in 1838, 155,000,000 Bee. ; in 1839,
122,000,000 lbs. ; being a deficiency of home con-
suinption of 33,000,000 lbs. The next article to which
I wil refer, as indicating the cepacity of our home con-
sumption, is wool. The consumption in la3B was 36,000,000
lbs, ; in 1839, 53,000,000 lbs. ; being a deficiency of con-
sumption of 6,000,000 lbs. Now with respect to flax, the
quantity for consumption in 1838wa51,625,830ewt. ; in 1839
1,22ae894. In silk, in 1838, 4,380,0001b5. ; in 1839,
4,700,0001b5., being a deficiency of home consumption of
29,000,0001b5. Therefore, what was entered for home con-
sumption was considerably less, while there was a great
increase in the exports of our manufacturers. But, Sir, I
shalt only advise those persons who refer to the tables of
our exports, as a proof of the prosperity of the country,
to refer to our manufacturing friends, or any person ac-
quainted with business, and they will learn that they can
hardly consider an increase of exports a sure indication of
the prosperity of the country. But in order to show this
consignment, in consequence of the diminution of con-
sumption at home and not from the demands from abroad,
I will read an extract from an American correspondent,
who says, " I with to give a hint to those British manu-
facturers who continue to send over goods to this country
to be sold at forced sales at any price they can get, that
if the practice is continued, the loss will be enormous."
Then Mr. Biddle, a gentleman well known in America,
addresses a letter to this country on the commercial affairs
of the United States, and also as to the quantity of foreign
imports there, in which he says, " there remains to De
added the last question of foreign trade—the supply of
imports in the present year is far beyond the produce of
our exports." This seems to correspond with the opinion
of those who hold there is no just sign of prosperity but
the indication of home consumption, and therefore I
think it a sign of depressed manufactures that the home
manufacturers failed ; and the conclusion to be drawn
from the evidence of the returns affords no argument of
the prosperity of the country during high prices, but pre-
cisely the contrary. Now consider, with respect to the
home consumption, which is boasted as better when prices
are high, the evidence afforded by the revenue. I believe
the point at issue is, whether the people have more
power of consuming the necessaries of life when
the prices are high, than when they are low ?
In looking at the returns of the revenue, I find they cor-
respond precisely in proving that when a person is obliged
to pay more for bread, he is obliged to pay more for other
articles. In the year ending 1838-1839 (this is only made
up to January, 1840—the evidence would be much more
striking could it be given up to the sth of April) a great
falling off took place in the consumption of hops, malt,
soap, and spirits, things which the great mass of the com-
munity consume. I find, with respect to hops, the re-
turns for the United Kingdom, for 1838, were 298,0001. ;
in 1839, 280,000/. In malt, in 1838, 5,200,000/. ; in 1839,
4,300,000/. Soap, in 1838, 1,047,0001; in 1839, 782,000/.
In spirits, in 1838, 451,000/. ; in 1839, 542,0001. As far as
the returns of Excise afford evidence, it seems to me con-
clusive that there is a greatly diminished home consump-
tion of those articles on which taxes are raised. I cannot
help supporting my views on this subject by the authority
of an intelligent and enlightened author, whose name, I am
sure, is held in great respect in this House, that the cause of
this depressed state of commerce is the effect of the Corn-
laws. I now refer to a pamphlet of Mr. Jones Lcyd,
whom I know to be a very cautious person, and who would
not express himself unless he had great confidence in the
soundness of his views.—(The Hon. Gentleman then read
an extract from Mr. Loyd's pamphlet, but we were only
able to hear the latter part of it, which was to the effect
that the present system made derangements of the mone-
tary and commercial departments the inevitable conse-
quence of the misfortune of the seasons—thus throwing
the poison of policy into the fiendish cauldron of injustice.)
I am not referring to a person likely to express himself
rashly upon any subject—( Hear, bear)—not to a person
who, like myself, has, in the opinion of those who oppose
me, no stake in the country, but of a person probably the
possessor of more property,than any, or perhaps altogether,
of those who will take part in this discussion ; a person
who possesses property of every description, not only
monied, but extensive landed property, and who holds
more property of another description than any person 1
can name ; yet he, who is famed for having thought deeply
on this subject, expresses himself thus warmly in this pub-
lication; therefore I back my opinion with the authority of
this gentleman, as to all our commercial and monetary
embarrassments having their spring from this very law.
—( Hear, hear.) I am seeking to repeal—having
some rather startling results of what I consider to be the
fluctuation of the price of provisions under the oppresion
of the Corn-laws; it becomes useful to learn what is the
effect on the working-classes of the country of this influ-
ence on our manufactures. We find that when the pro-
ductive power of the country is suddenly checked,it greatly
disturbs all the arrangements of commerce, and the ar-
rangements for production which existed at the time, and
therefore it is important to know what is the effect with
which the sudden contraction of the currency and manu-
factures is attended. I have obtained the result of an
inquiry from one of those manufacturing interests, which
I would not quote if it did not afford a proof of what is
now generally the case throughout the manufacturing
interests of the country. It is the result of an
inquiry made in Bolton a few weeks ago :
" The people of England are paying about fifty millions
a-year more for food than they did in 1835. How does
this affect 13olton ? The population of our union, a dis-
trict comprising a surface of 45,695 acres, of which Bolton
is the centre, contained, according to the census of 1831.
83,369 inhabitants. It must now be more than 90,000
Suppose them to pay only teripence per head per week
more for food than in 1835 (and this is a very moderate
calculation), this makes for the last twelve months a sun
of one hundred and ninety-five thousand pounds. But ac
cording to the theory of the landowners, wages should
have risen with the price of food. Have they done so?
On the contrary, the rate of wages, in every instance, is
lower without exception. In the cotton-mills alone, abon'
ninety-five thousand pounds less have been paid during
the last twelve months. Many of the mills have been en-
tirely stopped for all or part of the time; and with onl)
two exceptions, all have worked short time for a consider-
able portion of the past year. Including the millwrights
and engineers, machine-makers, colliers, hand-loom
weavers, joiners, bed-quilt and counterpane weavers, and
all the other trades required by a population of 90,000, 1
have made a very careful calculation from extensive per-
sonal inquiry, and assert most confidently, that altogether
there roust have been at least 130,000/. less paid in wages in
the Bolton,oo o.m Union,or Ne
f r
add the 1e
o w3roe,Oi
s a total lo
00/. less ins
sto wages i
the 15
food,
andth
Bol-
ton of 325,000/.1 What arc the consequences ? There art
now in Bolton 1,126 houses untenanted of which about 50
are shops, some of them in the principal stt-oetn. Here is a
loss to the owners of 10,0901. to 13,000/. a year. The
shopkeepers are almost ruined by diminished returns and
bad debts. There were, a short time ago, three sales of
the effects of shopkeepers in one days Distraints for cot-
tage rents occur daily. The e.rrears of cottage rents, and
the debts to shopkeepers are incalculable, bait th
ey must
amount to many thousand pounds The pawnbrokers'
shops are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and even
bedding of the destitute poor. PeVcr is alAo i3re';alenl-. Mr.
S. R. Kay, one of the inedieak °tot-I.s of the Union, and
a young practitioner or great promise, lately took the in-
fection of malignant typhus, and last week fell a victim to
his harassing cit t:tes. lie had latterly worked almost night
and da:; A short time ago 500 persons were relieved by
t the Poor-law Guardians in one day, in amount varying
from six to eighteen.pence per head-per week. In man)
cases two or three families are crowded into one house.
In one ease seventeen persons were found in a dwel-
ling about Ave yards square. In another, eight persons
with two pairs of looms and two beds, in a cellar six feet
under ground, and measuring four yards by five. There
are scores of families, with little er n 5 bcddin t having lite-
rally eaten it, pawntcl, or Sold it for food 1 The out-door
relief to the poor is three times greater in amount
than on the average of the thice years ending 1838.
I have no means of esetetaining the cutout to which the
revenues of the Public Gas and Water Companies have
been diminished—the proprietors will know to their cost,
when they come to make their dividends; several thou-
sand pounds at least, have been lost by them during the
past year. The Bolton and Liverpool Railway has also
suffered severely—some thousands of tons less of raw cot-
ton, timber, Irish produce, groceries, &c., &c., must have
Passed over it, South of Bolton, four miles, a large
spinning establishment, givin., employment to 800, and
subsistence to 1,300 persons, has been entirely stopped for
nine months. The proprietor lies upwards of 100 cottages
empty, or paying no rent, and although possessed of im-
mense capital, finds himself unable to continue working
his mills to advantage. Entering 13olton from Man-
chester, another mill, requiring 180 bands, has been en-
tirely standing for eighteen months. In the centre of the
town another, 250 hands, stopped several weeks. North
of Bolton, one mile, a spinning, manufacturing, and
bleaching establishment, on which 1,200 persons were
dependent for subsistence, has been entirely standing four
months. Several machine-makers and engineers are now
employing one to two hundred hands less than usual, at
wages varying from fifteen to forty shillings a week. A
public subscription, amounting to nearly 2,0001., has just
been raised to mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings of
the destitute poor ; in fact, to deal out a scanty pittance,
just sufficient to keep them from actual starvation, to a
body of workmen, who possess perhaps greater skill and
industry than any population of similar numbers on the
face of the globe; but who are forbid, by the inhuman
and fiendish policy of our landowners, to exchange the pro.
duce of their labour for food in the open market of the world."
This is what may be realized in any manufacturing dis-
trict. It is not confined to a cotton district. In the neigh-
bourhood with which I am connected it is precisely the
same. From many other places you might get the same
report. Is it, then, unreasonable to bring these things
under the consideration of the House ? For if this dis-
tress is, as I maintain it is, resulting from the law, I say
it is not only the duty, but in the power of the Legislature,
to afford instant and permanent relief. These persons are
suffering for want of a supply of the article of food.
Lower the price of provisions, and you extend prosperity to
the country at large ; but what is the nature of the effect
of this system on our present relations with the United
States? This country is largely the creditor of the United
States, and now many orders arc sent over to persons
who cannot execute them, because they are not paid the
debts owing to them, while at this moment a large amount
of good food, from America, is lying in bond, which we
must not touch, but which, if we were allowed to do, the
bills would be paid for. It is consigned to Americans in
this country, and those merchants who are creditors of
America would be paid if the flour were allowed to come
in, and the consequence would be that instant employment
would be given to persons who arc starving. Is it then
unreasonable to ask for the repeal of a law which prevents
this ? But it is not only that they can give this
instant relief, but I say what the country requires
now is that commerce be extended—that those restraints
be removed which now press upon it, and prevent the in-
crease of the people—the people of this country—many
of them depend for existence on foreign trade, and many
think it ought not to he extended—but whether to do so
could be wise or fo,,lish, it is too late now to teak etyma.
We have brought into existence millions of persons for the

cypress purpose of supplying that trade, and it is so
essential now—it is part of a system which we cannot
weaken without inflicting great distress, and destroying
the interests of the country. Sir, it is, in my
ooi,tion, the business—the ditty of every statesman,
a every man in public office to attempt, by every means he
eau, to extend the commerce of this country, and improve
our commercial relations with every part of the world.
This is the mode in which to give employment to the in-
dustry of the country, and enable the manufacturers to ob-
tain a profit. Ido not believe it to be true that it is impo?-
sable to extend our commerce—that it is impossible to nego-
tiate with other countries ) I believe all evidence is in
favour of our being able to extend those relation!. I have
hardly had time to look into the Report of Dr. Bowling,
but I do believe, if proper steps were taken to produce a
commerce more favourable to the interests of this country
with the united Stages in the Commercial League,
it would be successful.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
You may say he is not trustworthy, but I am of a con-
trary opinion. Ile says, "
I am able to state clearly that
the Prussian Government not only consent, but desire to
cuter into negotiations to lower the tariff of both coun-
tries." Now, what attempts can be made to effect this as
icing as we maintain these laws ? They say they know the
people are ready to do so, but the Aristocracy arc too
strong to be beaten, and that the Legislature of the coun-
try will not sanction any change. It is not right to say
they arc not willing to negotiate. What did the late Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade (Mr. C. P. Thomson)
state last year? 110 not only quoted a statement in a
setter, but said he had other letters from different Minis-
ters stating that their Governments were willing to nego-
tiate with us. Why, there have been public meetings to
petition the King of Prussia to interfere to induce them to
alter the duties, and such was the effect of this fact in the
House of Lords, that a Noble Lord asked the head of the
Government if it were correct, and his answer was in the
affirmative. What ground then had any person for
saying they were not ready to negotiate with us ?
That was a subject which was of great importance at the
present moment. You have lost many other opportuni-
ties, and I believe there is one left to you, and it is of the
greatest importance to the people of this country to know
what course is to he adopted at this crisis. Is it true that,
in 1842, the League in question will be settled for the
twelve years following, so that it cannot be altered
afterwards? I wish to know whether- that will be the case
also with the United States? America is the best market
we have at present, and, at the expiration of 1842, it will
be impossible to negociate with that country. The time
for doing so will have passed. There is, then, but a mo-
ment left for entering into a treaty with the United States ;
and we are suffering each successive year, for want of a
wider field for the capital, the industry, and the skill of
the inhabitants of this country. The people arc gra-
dually declining for want of extending their markets.
Are we to allow the present moment to pass by, and is
this motion to be treated with indifference ?-or is it
to be rejected as if it were of no importance to our com-
merce, while the existing Corn-laws are undoubtedly a
great obstacle to our trade with other nations ? I will ex-
pect in the course of the discussion the public will be in-
formed whether the opinion I have alluded to is correct—.
whether we have now an opportunity of entering into com-
mercial negotiations with other countries—and I am desir-
ous of seeing whether the question will be treated as it has
hitherto been treated—with indifference and contempt.—
" Hear, hear," and " No, no," on the Opposition benches. )
I say that last year the question was treated with contempt.
After seeing the dissatisfaction which the Corn-laws create
—after seeing the number of petitions that have been pre-
sented for their repeal—you have refused to take the sub-
ject into consideration.—( Hear.) Do you mean to say
that that was not treating the people with contempt ?
( Hear.) Our object should not now be merely to extend
our trade, but to prevent its decline. It had was
last year that there were grounds for some fear on that

tread. We had formerly been told that such was the superi
ority of British capital, skill, and industry, that no other
country could maintain a competition with us. Last year,
however, we had heard a different doctrine. It had been
admitted that the commerce of other States now flourished,
but it had been said that this was naturally to be expected,
eid that we could not wish to have a monopoly of com-
merce to ourselves. What we complain of, however, is
that we are placed under great disadvantages in our com-
petition with other nations—( Hear, hear)—and the people
say that if they are to run a race of rivalry they
should be allowed to do so unfettered. We are now
in great danger of losing the trade which we at present
have, and there are many countries in which it has been
.Iready lost. The exports of this country have been en-
irely changed : we used to export manufactured goods to
States where we now export the means of manufacturing
them. We certainly export more coals, iron, and raw ar-
ticles in cotton than we formerly did, but in past times we
exported ready-made goods; and if we compare our pre-
‘ent exports to corn-growing countries, such as Russia and
Prussia, to what they once were, we shall find a most strik-
ing difference. There was a decrease between 1832 and 1838
in our exports of cotton, linen, silk, woollen, and hosiery
amounting to 609,000/. There had been an increase of
population which rendered that decrease in commerce still
,nore striking, With respect to countries whose produce
NC receive there has been an increase of 1,236,0001. With
regard to the raw material exported to corn-growing
countries there had been an increase in coal, iron, and
steam machinery to the amount of 233,0001., showing the
consequence of our not maintaining a trade with them. As
A German writer has expressed it—we have driven them
Crum their fields to their fabrics.—( Hear, hear.) That
is the common language in that country. They say they
should be happy to take our manufactures, but they could
not pay for them in money, and they were therefore obliged
to try to manufacture for themselves. They say they re-
gret extremely they cannot have an intercourse with us,
founded on mutual advantages, and that they would much
prefer confining themselves to agricultural pursuits, so far
were they from entertaining any disinclination for the ex-
tending their relations with us. They say, however, that
our Corn-laws prevent the extension of these relations.
There is one circumstance I must not forget to mention in
referring to the effects of these laws—it is this, that they
raise the price of all articles purchased by Government
contracts. The returns laid before the House show that
in those contracts wheat has risen 28 per cent., malt 36
percent., biscuits 20 per cent., flower 40 per cent., oat-
.neal 14 per cent., meat 38 per cent, beef 18 per cent-, and
:ea 94 per cent. We have heard a good deal this Session
about a deficiency in the Revenue. An attempt may be
made to meet that deficiency by imposing new taxes on
Ale people ; but if you tax them on one article, you mast
xpect a falling off' in something else. The people may
tray anew tax, but they cannot continue to pay so much as
they now do in the way of indirect taxation. If there is
A deficiency in the Revenue, from what Sources can you
xpcct to supply it ? That is a matter for very serious
consideration. I must say that, in my opinion, it is impos-
,ible to impose ft esh taxes on any necessary article of con-
sumption of the people at large. To what, then, arc you
to look ? I think that is a subject that cannot be too soon
considered. There must be some revision of our present
taxation. If the people arc to be taxed, not only for ex-
cisable articles, but lot food, and that fluctuations occur
A hick compel them to pay mote for the necessaries of lite,
it is quite clear that the llevenue cannot but suffer.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) I believe there is no prospect
of a diminution of prices in corn, for the next
eighteen months to come. I may be mistaken, but I
believe there will be no material change in our harvests
between the presetit and last year, and that you cannot
hope for a good one until the year 1842. When is it,
then, that our manufacturers can look for an improvement
in trade? God forbid that I should sanction anything like
a breach in public faith, but it seems to me that so long
as the Corn laws Continue, there is but one re-
source to which we cab resort, and that is A tat on pro-
perty.—( Hear, hear.) That scents to Mei tindet all the
circumstances, to be the most just means of proceeding,
and it would certainly be but a fair indemnity to the
country that such it tax should be imposed. In the year
1330 we were in a difllerent condition from the present,
although the price of food Was high and the home trade
was as bad as it is now: Mr. Huskieson at that time
reviewing tire state of the Country, trade dint of his most
able speeches, and it was one of his last, to the tiotisti.
It was quite clear, he said, that if things were to go on as
they then did, and if they could only collect the same
amount of revenge; and if our trade did not improve, that
we had no other aitcfnatilio but tbitt of irtiposing a tax on
property. He also stated in that speeeli the etrongcet
grounds for recommending such a tax. He called the
attention of the House to three or four facts connected
with the taiatioti Nf the country: He stated, first, that no
other country in Europe had eo late° a oroportion of taxa-
tion bearing directly on the incomes or the laticitifing and
productive classes; and next, that in no other country
of
the same extent is there so large a mass of income be-
longing to those classes who do not roduche—d
(Hear, hear)—and thirdly, that in no other co
a
so large a portion of its taxation been mortgaged and,
fourthly, that in no other country doestsoc.lrarignecortmroepsoarbtirocnntd).f
the non-productive classes consumeb h
we.re taxed,Pl:ur-t
said that those
Ile added that he knew it might
sons could witholrait their A t at it could not be
o mortgag,u n•, ,
the fact was that it was s property °if;
taken out of this country.
He continued to Say that there
ea; great danger to,
FrodUctive capital mieght
apprehended, and that was, that I
b
n fro this coUntr to
I do not believe in the policy
I raw
other states.—. 4 Hear, hear.) be
even thoughthe
to me to be impossible
of having recourse to newa it seems
people
should submit to it; d
any other means than a tax on
exhausted the patience of the House,
revenue
by
to improve our
property. Having quiltthe attention they ales iven me.
I must thank them for
before t do
however, help expressing
swn, a
I cannot, who arc opposul to any change
hope that those persons
in the Cern-la", will pause before they come tu a deci-
sionquestion. I wish to ask what they
on the present .
laws ?
If they think we are
expect from theldexi svtiengus
an
opportunity of correcting
wrong, they should
classg of persons who bad never before'
our opinions. -
spoken or alluded to
the present subject, have lately come
the repeal of the Corn-laws. Let
forward as advocates for
oh
th House cautious
me call the attention who residep
over thethat commercial
and conservative class,
and let •
me ask you when you
interests of this metropolis,have found them calling for
a change until now ? The
laws are injurious toy
positively
declare that the existing
all the interests with which they arc connected. You
have now a greater number of the working classes turning
ration of the subject than you
ever had before under t
themselves to the cons id
circumstances.
1 want to know
a mere rude rejection of the
present motion? To t
what you can expect fromba
that
motion a direct negative has
been moved. I do not know whether I ought the more
to admire that bold injustice
P or the insidious ro-
Member for C
fro p
rn
lyrned
position of the flonourabe M a-
m r. re.)
bridge.—(" Hear, hear, bear,"e
forward pged
Many individuals have
for the future. That is the best
to agitate the question
I know .
no surer sign that
test of their earnestness, as
st than when they sacrifice their
Englishmen are in earnest
present motion, what will be
money. If you reject the
will home •
return satisfied
the consequence? Why, they
that they arc right, and that you will not do t h
em justice.
Will that
settle the
What prospect does that offer yo
question—will that facilitate your views, or will it do any-
th ing to quiet the public mind on the question ? What is
I..crc ;0 suc'i x Pr ,eccding to induce people ?v :,dmit that
they are wrung? They cannot find that they arc better

off in consequence of these laws—they will still find
that no season passes which does not bring some fresh
proof of the disadvantages of the present system. We
have heard of no distinguished writer coming- forward in
defence of those laws.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches.) I only state what I rnyeelf remarked, and if
there had been any able publication on that side of the
question I should have read it with the greatest iaterest:
Ihope the House will pause before they come to a deci•
stun not to take the subject into consideration. I will not
put forward any particular views I may have as to the per-
tieular change which it might be advisable to pursue with
reTect to these laws. I have only attempted to point out
the evils which have resulted from the present sys-
tem.—( Hear.) In what I have stated to the House
I heve appealed to all who may agree with me in thinking
the present laws do not work well. Suppose the House should
decide against me, do many of those who now feel pre-
pared to vote in such a way, feel convinced that they v, ill
not vote another way in a very short time ? That is the
reason why I wish the House to consider what prospect
there is of setting tile question without sonic inquiry. It
is no matter whether the Government propose the question
or not, and it is of no consequence that I am for a total
repeal, and that you are not; in considering the nature
of the present less, the motion is made by one who is en-
titled to make it, and if you vote against it vou with be
considered a friend to the existing law.—(Hear, heir. )
And do you think you will be able to maintain the law?—
( Hear, hear.) You have the power to do so for the
position, but you will have to look to a diff, rent
practice for the future. This is not a question between
the manufacturer and the landowner.—( Hear, hear. ) It
is but a weak invention of the enemy; it is but a way to
bring discord into the question. The subject is one which
interests the whole community, and not a portion of it,—
(hear, hear.) As far as I have been able to collect the
opinions of those great masses of intelligent people called
the working classes of this country, they have brought for-
ward their claims to be entitled to the suffrage, on the
grounds that their interests are not at present sufficiently
attended to ; they put forward the indifference of the
House on the present question as an argument most fa-
vourable to their claims; and, as far as I have been able
to collect their views, this question is a sort of test of the
constitution of this House,which they will point to hereafter.
Now, who act with them ? The class immediately above
therre—( Hear, hear.) The lower classes say to the
middle, " The House of Commons will never do you juts
Pee.; until it is reformed." The middle classes reply,
" Allow us to petition the House, and point out the evils of
the present, and do not believe that they will refuse us
justice until eve have tried ; but if they do not do so this
time, we will never petition again." Every one who
went round with the petitions said;that the general expres-
sion was, " This is the last time we will petition for this;
the next time we will petition for something else."—( Hear,
hear.) Do you not think, then, that there will be a cor-
dial and hearty union between the middle and lower classes,
if you refuse even to inquire what may be done on this
question ?—( Hear, hear.) At Manchester I met 5,000
people of the working and middle classes at a dinner,
at which they were assembled to celebrate their union
on this question, and it would have been a striking
sight to any one who was accustomed to disparage the
working classes, to observe their demeanour on that occa-
sion. Do you think they will again assemble to declare
that they had only met on that day to make fools of them-
selves ? I ask you what will you gain by exposing your-
selves to the odium of your countrymen ?—( Hear.) The
House ought to look to this. You cannot persuade the
• people that the law, which so many able and good men
have denounced, is not pernicious ; and yet I fear that there
arc many in this House who come determined to oppose
even the consideration of the subject.—( Hear.) But they
' cannot escape from the responsibility of whatever disaster
may follow--whether social or political. It will lie at the
door of every man who opposes the consideration ;
and I believe that the disasters occasioned by this law are
the cause of discontent and disaffection amongst the people.
will not trespass further upon the time of the House.—
( Hear, hear.) I hope I have expressed myself without
undue warmth.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I think that lam
in the right, and that it would be wise to adopt the views
which I have stated—( Hear, hear)—and I thank the
House for the patience and attention with which I have
been heard.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE ST R. ICKLA ND seconded the motion.
He would not go into Parliamentary and statistical details,
which had been so ably stated by his Hon. Friend. His
endeavour should be to point out the different circum-
stances under which this great and momentous question
presented itself now from last year. Throughout
the country, amongst the landed proprietors, mer-
chants, and manufacturers, there was a strong im-
pression that the happiness of the people and the
preservation of property required that a termination should
be put to the agitation of this question.—( Cheers, and
counter cheers.) Every person who attended to the peti-
tions which had been presented on that side (and he had
presented many), must observe that there was a greater
earnestness in them than in former years. The petitioners
were more strongly impressed than ever with the injustice
of the Corn-laws The excitement was increased and in-
creasing ; and the time had arrived when the Honse could
Hot safely or prudently evaded the consideration of the sub-
ject.—( Hear, hear.) The restriction upon the importa-
tion of foreign corn was a bonus to our Continental and
other rivals in manufactures, and embarrassed and dis-
tressed the commercial and manufacturing relations of the
country. By raising the price of food, they disabled the
labourer from suppling himself and his family with other
necessaries. A few nights ago he ( Sir G. Strickland)
had presented a petition from Ripon, the centre of
an extensive agricultural district in the East Rid-
ing of Y. orksime, where manufactures were hardly
known, and ten others from Doncaster, and the
agricultural district of which it was the centre. The Hon.
Member then read a letter which accompanied the peti-
tions, and stated that there was a strong feeling amongst the
af..;riculturists in favour of the repeal. Looking to the body
of manufacturers who were interested in that repeal, he
found that in the cotton manufacture, in hardware, and
cutlery, the numbers employed were 2,200,000, and (as
we understood) the aggregate annual value of their manu-
factures was 86,000,000/. These were the persons who
told the House that they were distressed, and that their
distress was occasioned by the Corn-laws- They only
asked the house to permit them to show what were the
effects of those laws, and to prove the disadvantages to
which they are exposed.—( Hear.) They wished to show
that Germany and America were willing to take our
manufactures in exchange for their produce. The Ame-
ricans, notwithstanding their natural disadvantages, were
underselling us in the West Indies, and in South America.
—( Hear, hear.) They wished to show that those laws
had established Switzerland as a manufacturing country,
and Saxony exported stockings even to this country.
!u the five years, from 1832 to 1837, our exports to Ger-
many had diminished one-half. Great distress at this
moment prevailed in the manufacturing districts. In
Leeds alone, to the great honour of the inhabitants,
5,000/. had been subscribed recently for the relief of the
unemployed ; and in Bradford 3,0001., notwithstanding the
great increase of the poor-rates. In Sheffield the Union
workhouse was sometimes entirely filled, and it was neces-
sary to give out-door relief. A manufacturer in Halifax,
who employed some thousands of persons, declared that if
some relief were not speedily given to trade, he would be
obliged to discharge a great portion of his workmen.—
( Hear.) It was in vain to contend that because there was
an increase in the capons this year that there was an in-
crease in the prosperity of the manufacturer. The tact
, was, that the increase was chiefly in the export of the raw
material and the implements of manufacture. The
increase of those exports was a further proof of the ten-
dency of the Corn-laws to depress the manufacturers. In
the year ending the sth January, 1835, the declared value
cf the exports was 16,000,000 i. ; in the last year it was
I 7,6K000/. But in the former year the amount of manu-
factured cotton exported was 460,000,0001'05., and in the
last year only 355,000,0001b5. So, likewise, in woollens,
there was a decrease in the exports from 56,000,0001hg. to
53,000,000165. This was not a labourer's question ; but it
woe a great national question—(Cheers)—because so long
as a vast majority of the people thought that the Corn-laws
were the cause of their distresses how could they expect
that they would not continue to approach that Houso with
their prayers, asking the House either for a repeal of the
Laws, or full inquiry/ During the continuance of the
Cern-laws, and the restriction on importation, the price of
wheat had 'fluctuated to the most ruinous extent. lie could
easily show that during former periods -when those restric-
tions did nut exist—when there was no duty on foreign corn
—that at that period those great fluctuations did not take
place. From 1771 to 1 7Sl—in those 10 years when the duty
on foreign wheat was only GA.—during those years the
highest price was 2/. I2s. Bd. and the lowest 1/. 13s. Bd.
being a fluctuation of only 19s. the quarter, but in the
eight yearn from 1815 to 1823 prices varied from
41. 14s. 9d. to 2/. 4s. 7d., being a fluctuation of
2/. 10s. 2d. or 503. a planer instead of 193. ; and was
the case when there was only a very small duty. Sad
e:Terience had shown to the labouring population that
high prices in corn did not bring along with it a propor-
tionate increase of wages. There was great dissatisfaction
on this subject in several parts of the country, but he be-
lieved that at that moment the people were bearing their
distresses and privations with unexampled patience. Would.
that House then, when they were bearing themselves so
patiently, turn e deaf car to their prayer, or would they not
say that the time had come when they ought to change
the course of their proceedings. In heavy taxation the
country was now paying the penalty of long and deso-
lating warfare. It had been maintained that the Corn-
laws had been passed to enable the country
to bear it more easily, that was to say, protection, was to
he given to the landed proprietors, at tile expense of the
people. Monopoly and restriction, it had been invariably
found, brought poverty and not afiluence—( Hear)—and
taxation could only be paid by the rich and d
emplloywe,
and lot by an impoverished people.—( Hear, hear.) as
the great body of the middle and labouring classes of
the
food, or
adducedhadbeen
advanced, a
society which approached that House asking for inquiry ;
be
the merchants and manufacturers asked for "iictions
protec-
tion, they asked only for a removal of all re_satsrt
few
days.
( Hear, hear.) They had heard width.in the 1
pfromla n
ihnigg ho
of
ts a authority,nn uthat a
ae
ol ann;d ent
baitlnetietnor ecssotenl
157hgreueierncleaoenmodi:
this the landed proprietors werck..o
suchan d thea statets,.nan t
fw
things,
sn,o
bt
er i s„,k t
do nags
ka,
coonagt laeautathesii
,oca
and what
t.n
tniluciar
Aisne,t eyhti.eoa
rr.e)m
ei.tyoubi:uatdbyb :enavetsotli
dg aiiquiry
itnbetlpmutblilcioi
better employed than in-listening
how that House could be
Douse
business.would
Nboew
,t heb e u
wouldre e
coofa
cloubdset r
bu cv t iaosnk
stga
pble—than in giving them an
y. alleviating their distresses
after the very length-
ened
andat °i> abundant nhrdeeadnrte prayerssssuipnigsl
theiryooff
five nights,j and after evewyargumenndt
rrh
de i sEc ua sl i fn
DARLINGTON,
which g r
theev seoeudtl
could
haderee
an
lundergonereally
declared
h ardlyhave
aay
vset
a Si
ma-
jorityi
ne Ses-
sion,
that
ihn nd
oftthh eantsoeunlnesdsees rotfht than
nhe
elv4Ho7roYuhsseca m circumstances, and in the
could in a debate
possiblyof
Same Parliament, the question should have again been
brought for ward in the succeeding Session. —( Hear, hear.)
Such, however, seas the case, although he must say ec
I eerily believed that it was not with the Consent c.r eNeo-
bation of the Hun. Member himself that was brought for-

ward.—( Hear, hear.) Yet so necessary did it seem to the
pay ty he advocated in that House that the agitation should
br kept up—so great was the pressure from without, that the
Delegates, in holding their petty Parliament, bed in some
instances resorted to the expedient of having some of their
speeches published in order to circulate over the whole
country.—( Hear, hear.) This question had been fully
discussed in the last session, and he could not, in the
vvlTole speech of the lion. Member, discover any new ar-
guments. The Hon. Member stated that his opinion re-
mained unchanged, and he ( Lord Darlington) begged leave
to sav that nothing had been brought for ward by that lion.
Gentleman that would induce him to change his. He
denied altogether that the li use of Commons had come
last year, after a five nights' debate, to a hasty or incon_
sid,:trate conclusion; be believed the question had been
fairly discussed and deliberately considered, and he was
ready to admit that he had no stronger arguments to pro-
duce than had been brought forward last session. He
should be sorry to waste the time of the House,but he must
be allowed to say that be should feel more sorry if he
the trght the fate of the landed interest depended upon an)-
thin so shallow as his own arguments.—( A laugh.)
Intl e last Session there were arguments brought forward
in favour of the landed interest which had placed it upon a
rock ; he alluded particularly to the speeches of the Mem-
ber for the North Riding of Yorkshire and the Right
Hon. Daronet the Member for Tamworth. With the latter
speech the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had not a.-
tempted to grapple, as be knew it was unanswerable. The
Corn-law opponents could not have a more able advocate
than the Hon. Member, but if the cause was unsound in
principle and rotten at the core, it would fail, however ta-
p lented its advocate; it was far from his wish, when he
statad that the subject Imas divested of any new argument,
not to concur with the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton,

that this subject had assumed a very different shape
to what it had done in former years. At one time
it was considered a question of conflicting interests,
but it was between the country gentlemen and the
manufacturers. In many instance; the fundholder, be-
cause he was told that he should have cheap bread, had
been found readily inclined to lsten to the arguments of
the Corn-law opponents, forgetting that at the very same
time they were loosening those very bonds on which they
held their securities. It was now a question between the
nation at large and the landed proprietor ; every sect was
now invited to take part either on one aide or .the
other. They all knew the active exertions that were made
by the Corn-law League, and he was afraid that in some
instancee they had not been been very scrupulous as to the
ans as to high they resorted. In many of their publica-
dens most scurrilous language was resorted to, and bills of
every description were disseminated through the manufac-
turing districts, and itinerant preachers were sent there to
preach to the people against the Corn-laws, and to poison
their ears with every species of filth and abomination.—
(Ironical cheers.) He could not but regret that men of
such character as many of the millowners of Manchester
should, for a small pecuniary advantage, and a present
temporary gain' lend their aid and their influence to the
spread of such doctrines. Many of' the arguments of the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had surprised him, and
they only showed to what shifts Gentlemen were driven to
uphold their cause. Although the exports of this country
had increased latterly upwards of two millions, those who
advocated the repeal of the Corn-laws saw that that
was not a proof of the prosperity of the country but
of -its distress, because the quantity of raw material
was less than in previous years—( Hear, hear, bear)—
but he had yet to learn that that distress, such as it was
was attributable to the Corn-laws. There had been a very
remarkable document put into his hands within the last few
days, emanating from the debates on this subject in the De-
legation in Palace-yard. It was entitled, " National dis-
tress proved by increesed exports combined with diminished
production." It appeared to be a speech delivered by Mr.
Edward Baines, the son, he believed, of a Member of that
House—( Hear, hear)—and who appeared from his speech
to be a very ingenious, clever young rnan.—( Cheers.)
His speech appeared to have given such satisfaction to the
gentlemen assembled there that they had directed it to be
printed as a separate document, and caused a copy of it to
be sent to every Member of Parliament.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) Although he admitted that his ar-
guments were very able, yet he must be permitted to say
that they were not quite conclusive. The gist of his argu-
ment seemed to be that although he admitted there was an
increase in the exports, yet, in consequence of the importa-
tion of the raw material having diminished, this increased
exportation, instead of proving the existence of prosperity
proved precisely the reverse. Alluding to the returns of
exports, lie said, " that official documents shows that a
larger amount of British manufactures was exported in the
year ending January 15, 1840, than in the year 1839, the
increase being nearly two millions on the declared value. I
shall shortly prove from the very docernent thus ad-
duced, a case not of extending, but of declining trade and
manufactures. But before Ido this I cannot help clefiress-
sinr, my surprize that any document or any figures could
induce men who have the use of their eyes and
ears to believe that trade was good, or that the present
condition of the country was not one of severe and fearful
suffering.", So far he agreed with Mr. Baines that trade
was not good, and that the condition of the country was one
of severe and fearful suffering ; but if it was said that this
was attributable to the duty on corn he would deny the as-
sertion—it might just as well be contended that it was
owing to the duty upon timber —( Hear.) Now as he
liked to hear effects attributed to their true causes, he would
express his opinion as to the causes of the severe distress
under which the country was at present suffering. The
lion. Member for Wolverhampton had, in the course of
his speech, alluded to the withdrawal of bullion from this
country for the purchase of corn last year, and he had said
that if they looked at the returns of the withdrawal of bul-
lion, and of the importation of foreign corn, those returns
ould be found to correspond. This proved that corn was
not to be purchased to any great extent for the use of this
country except for bullion.—( Hear.) Six millions had
been paid during 1839 for the purchase of foreign curie
and the consequence was the withdrawal of this bul-
lion out of the Bank had obliged them to contract
their issues—they had been compelled to do so
for self-preservation. They were on the verge of bank-
ruptcy, and he had heard it asserted last September that
the Bank Directors were in possession of an Order in
Council, authorizing them to suspend cash payments when-
ever they might choose to make use of it. The demand
for bullion had obliged them to withdraw their i-sues,
ehich was a great cause of distress, and to double the rate
of ciiscour,t. What had been the consequence? Why,
that many master manufacturers, being deprived of that
accommodation which was necessary to them, had been
obliged to shut up their mills, and great distress amongst
their workmen was the consequence. There was another
cause, which had been almost altogether overlooked, and
that was the system of over-trading.—( Hear, hear.) He
remembered that in 18'25 Mr. Eluskisson attributed the
eistress and panic of that year solely to over-trading. The
e ears 1823 and 1824 had been the greatest years of corn-
iercial prosperity that had ever been known in
country, and the consequence was, that in
el 4 factories were built, and families were ad-

vertised to come and work in the manufacturing, districts
The consequence was overtrading, and the panic followed,
If that was the consequence in 1825, considering the im•
provements which had since taken place in our machinery
and the increase in the manufacturing population, wha
must be the present state of things, when the manufacturers
assert that they can manufacture, not only for all parts of
the world, but for a new one also, if a new one could be
discovered ? lie thought that, in consequence of over-
trading, the extent of our machinery and our nianufactur-
ing population, so far from being an advantage, was the
greatest possible evil. He had intended stating the an-
nual amount of exports since 1829, with a view of show-
ieg their increase; but, as the details were admitted, he
ould not trouble the House on the subject, but would
only allude to the iron trade, the increase in which, since
1829, had been most remarkable. The exports of iron
had amounted in
1829 to 89,338 tons
1832
1835
1826
1837
1838
Mr. Baines, in the course of his speeech, said, " Again
we have seen that there was an increase in the exportation
of hardwares and cutlery, but on turning to the raw mate-
rial, namely, the finest quality of iron which we import
from abroad, and which, therefore, is contained in this list
of imports, it appears that the quantity of iron entered
for home consumption, instead of increasing, declined."
Now, no one who knew the state of the iron trade in this
country could wonder that there was no great importation of
foreign iron. Gentlemen, perhapa, were not aware how iron
was protected. It was a general opinion that corn was
protected by a higher rate of duty than any other article,
but iron had a still higher protection. There were three
different qualities of iron, the duty on the importation of
tile first quality, iron bars, was I/. 10s. per ton ; on the
second quality, it was 5/. per ton; but on the hoop iron,
which was the finest quality, it was 231. 15s. per to%sesod
that if three tons of iron of different qualities were purchased
fur 30/., adding the three duties together they would
amount
to more than 301., so that iron was, in the aggregate,t. pro-
tected by a duty of more than 100 npterencento
say,
have leca,ri
hear, hear.) Mr. Baines then w
have been assured by gentlemene who have late])
immense
returned from America, that
goods either remain in the bands of quantities of
r'
the consignees, ore
have been forced to sale at a tremendous sacrifice." Now
he thought that every one who knew America must know
that that country was is a state of bankruptcy ; he was
surprised that more goods should be sent out there, and h
as long as that was the case, e was not surprised at dis-
tress being the consequence. This young gentleman, in
alluding to our present distress, had attributed it to a
failure of the demand for home consumption. He had
always understood that the manufacturers considered the
demand for home consumption as nothinr,s compared with
foreign exportation, and it was stated that this decreased
demand was owing to the inability of the people to pur-
chase in consequence of the operation of the Corn-laws.
Now, he would ask, who where the great home con-
sumers? Why, the landowner, the labourer, and the small
shopkeeper—these constituted four-fifths of the home
customers—and if the consumers were diminished,
by a repeal of these laws, where would they find new home
customers? if a farmer having 2001. complained that he
could not lay out as much as he wished in manufactures,
cas it reasonable to say that if his income, by a repeal of
the Corn-laws, were reduced to 1501., he would, somehow
or other, find means to purchase more manufactures out
of his diminished income?—( Hear, hear.) Although
farmers were not famed for the quickness of their percep-
tions, yet they could not fail to see through the fallacy of
that argument. Mr. Baines proceeded to say— I wish to
offer a plain illustration, which may convince even an agri-
culturist that increased exports may, under certain
of
fain
exigency.
circum-
stances, be a proof not of prosperity, but
Suppose a farmer, whose land yields on the average
one
hundred quarters of coru, of which he sends 60 guar ers
nd ether expenses,
to market in order to pay his rent
and keeps 40 quarters for the sup.epaorrtaof his family. Sup-
his farm only yields
pose that in an unfavourable )
90 quarters instead of lon, but that, owing to
increased nocessit,os 'lie sends 65
cvqiidiaeintteroslatofthicsoirun
t,, market instead of Go quartcr'.—it 1'
crease of his sales, which I may call
his exports, is not ;