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

Hon. Friend, especially that part of it which related to free trade I
in food. He had not condescended to tell them what food he
meant—whether bullocks, or gingerbread, or what. It appeared
to him unimportant whether tl .e petition was carried or not. The
Court of Common Council were now so odious that no
good could result from their petitions. If he thought
the poorer classes were adversaries of the Corn-laws, the motion
should have his support, but the honourable mover and seconder
reminded him of the company of strolling players, who advertised
to perform the tragedy of " Hamlet," but found themselves obliged
to omit the part of the Prince of Denmark. What was the real

question—the real cause of the national distress ? It was the na•
tional debt which made the bread of the country so high, and made
. .

. _
them unable to compote with foreign countries. Why did not
gentlemen come forward and tackle that monster, for while it re-
mained it was as impossible to remove distress as it would be to
remove St. Paul's. In fact, the Corporation themselves were taxers
of bread. Did they not derive a revenue from corn? They were
as much taxers of corn as the other House at the other end of the
town. What had taken place during the last fwo years ? Why,
the countries to whom we wanted to send our manufactures would
not take them. The Prussian League was carrying out the prin.
ciples of Bonaparte•s policy for the ruin of this country. Now, if
the Corn-laws were repealed, could they compete with foreign coun-
tries with 20 millions of taxes pressing on the country ? It was quite
impossible. He thought a great many unfair observations had
been made respecting the character and conduct of the landowners.
He regretted to hear the terms in which the aristocracy of the
country had been spoken of in that Court. Why, it was owing to
their aristocracy that arts and sciences were encouraged, talent
brought forward, and charity and morality fostered and encour-
aged. When he saw their old mansions, their splendid parks,
their old servants, and their unbounded hospitality, which he had
had thelhonour ofenjoying, he thought it must be that those who as-
sailed them never had the honour—(Roars of laughter)—he re-
gretted that such men should be held up to scorn In that Court. It
was urged that the manufacturing interest was everything, and the
landed interest nothing; but if so, why, instead of petitioning the
House of Commons, did they not take possession of these estates at
once, and let the landed interest go where it could.—(A laugh.)
The value of the agricultural interest in all its branches was
250,000,000/. He would ask them, was that nothing ?—(Hear,
hear.) It was said that the agricultural labourers were a
low, stupid, ignorant set ; those whom his Honourable Friend had
come into contact with might be such, but those he
(Mr. Wells) had met with were a moral, religious,
industrious, happy class. When the amendment was disposed of
it was his intention to move the previous question, being convinced
that if they repealed the Corn-laws they would ruin the agricul.
turist without doing any good to the manufacturing interests.
Mr. Noaass said the effect of the Corn.laws had been to introduce
corn from no less than twenty different countries into their ports,
but with the system of restrictions which these laws imposed, their
merchants and traders were not disposed to speculate in corn, and
the bonding system which had grown out of these regulations had
brought them to the very verge of ruin. He was astonished to
hear one gentleman say, that since the introduction of the present
system there had been less fluctuation in prices than formerly.
Now the fact was that in the fifteen years preceding the establish-
ment of these Corn-laws the mean average fluctuation had not
exceeded 4s. 10d. per quarter, while in the fifteen years that had
elapsed since their introduction, the mean average fluctuation
had been not less than 50s. 10d.—(Hear.) How then could the
argument be set up that these laws produced steady supplies and
fixity of price. With regard to steadiness of supply in one year,
they had two million seven or eight hundred thousand quarters of
wheat imported, and in the succeeding year not one-sixth of that
quantity. They had, of course, in addition to the unsteadiness of
supply, an extraordinary fluctuation in price—the money market
was deranged—their commerce was interrupted—mercantile spe.
eulations were suspended, with all the other inconveniences of such
clumsy and improper machinery. The Hon. Mamber for Billings-
gate had said that if the present laws were to be repealed it would
have the effect of reducing the price of labour, especially in the agri-
cultural districts. Now, what was the fact ? In the year 1834

when the iron hand of oppression ground down the agricultural
labourers, causing them to rise up and break the machinery of their
employers ; when they did that, they got 11s. or 12s. a week for
wages. In the next year, when the price of corn went down, the
agriculturists reduced the wages of their labourers from 19.5. to Se.

In the next year wheat rose to 565., but there was no advance in

the price of agricultural labour. Corn had gone up during the
present year, but instead of there being a commensurate advance. in

the price of labour, upon the basis laid down by the farmers in 1835,
,he wages were increased to the paltry pittance of Os. a week.
What then became of the argument, that the agricultural labourer
was better off when there was dear than when there was cheap
bread ? And in ..nswer to the argument, that the agricultural
labourer would suffer by depression in the home grown consump-
tion, he had only to say that at the present time the average amount
of wages paid to .he agricultural labourer was not as much as
it costs many parishes in London to support their paupers, and
the expense of keeping felons in the gaols.—(Cheers.) What
therefore became of the argument that this was • a healthy system,
and ought to be let alone?—(Cheers.) Mr. Bower should have re-
collected when he quoted the beautiful description of domestic hap-
piness given by Burns that it was drawn at a time and in a country
where no such laws existed.—(Cheers.) He contended that the
existence of the present Corn laws was to be attributed to the de-
fective state of the Reform Bill, that defect being in a great mea-
sure attributable to the Duke of Buckingham, then Marquis of
Chandos. He would venture to say that, under the present law,
the fluctuat ons in the price of corn were greater than they had
ever been under the old system. He should give his cordial sup-
port to the original motion.
_ _ _

Mr. MAITLAND observed that the Hon. Gentleman who had last
sat down had referred to the state of the country at the time Burns
wrote his " Cotter's Saturday Night." That Hon. Member would
find that the value of cotton manufacturing annually at that period
did not amount to much more than 500,0001., while our manufac-
tories had made the most extraordinary, unprecedented and, he
might almost say, unnatural, rapid progress as to amount, in annual
value to 37,000,0001. Our progress in manufacturing in cotton
goods had gone on side by side with those very Corn-laws that were
now so bitterly and suddenly condemned.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He
would not argue that it would be politic to impose on Foreign Corn
such a restrictive duty is to give the home farmer an undue ad-
vantage over the foreign agriculturist, but he contended that the
national debt to which reference had been made in the course of this
debate required them to put the foreign farmer on somewhat the same
footing as she home farmer, and that they should not permit the
foreign farmer to enter our ports, to enjoy the high prices of our
country, to sell his corn, perhaps, to the English agriculturist,
wits,' he was not contributing towards the payment of the interest
in the enormous national debt.--( Hear, hear.) If they abandoned
altogether every species of restrictive duty in foreign corn, they
would act most grievously against the first principles of political
economy and would err against the first principles of free trade.
The statistical details of this question had been amply discussed,
and it had, indeed, been said in another ph cc, " give the figures,
and I will prove anything."—(lfear, hear, hear.) He should
not therfore have recourse to figures, but would simply ob-
serve that Sir Robert Peel had proved by certain figures the
converse of the proposition of those who had advanced
them, and have shown that in the manufacture of highly-wrought
fabrics there had been an annual increase of eight per cent. He
would call upon that Court, and upon every well-wisher to his coun-
try, to disassociate himself entirely from that party who, in agitating
for a repeal of the Corn-laws, had invoked the aid of the Chartists.
If the Legislature were to sweep away everything like a fair and
proper protective duty, either by means of a fluctuating scale or a
fixed impost on foreign corn, they would entail ruin on the agricul-
tural interests of this country. A great deal had been said about
the affluence of the landlords and the enormous rents which they
received, but any one at all acquainted with land knew that it was
the very worst investment an individual could embark his capital in,
What would be the result, if men of stern purpose were to arise,
and attempt to carry into operation the violent principles of coercing
the Legislature, asserted by the opponents of the Corn. laws ?
It was a fallacy to call this a poor man's question. It was incor-
rect to say that the man who paid 9.loths of his income for bread,
was more interested in the question than he who paid only 2-3rds
or one-half. So large was the dead weight of labour on the land
of the lower grades, that the simulus arising from an extension of
manufactures through the repeal of the Corn-laws, would be but
temporary—land would be thrown out of cultivation. It wa
absurd to say that capital employed in cultivating the poorer lands
was thrown away, for lime and other manures would speedily con-
vert the poorest lands into the richest.—(Hear, hear, hear.) No
country could be said to be truly rich till a considerable
portion of its capital was invested in thus improving and cultivating
land. And who could be insensible to the vast difference in the
respective tendencies of the labour in agriculture and in mauufac-
tures ? Who ',would not acknowledge, when he looked upon the
miserable, sickly, feeble artisan, engaged in the emaciating toil of
crowded factories. that far happier was the lot of the hale, hearty,
agricultural labourer, employed in the healthy, pleasing task of till-
ing the land, amidst all the beauties and the attractions of nature.
M. Pewmess said the agricultural and manufacturing interests
only had been spoken of. He thought there was another large
portion of the community whose interests ought to be regarded.
He was reminded of it by the petition of the inhabitants of the
City of London, signed by 37,000 persons, whose interests he
thought the Court should take into consideration. When they
considered the population of the country was in..
creasing at a ratio of one thousand per day, he
thought something should be done to secure sustenance for
this larger increase of population. If it were found the manufac.
tures of the country could not be extended further, and that the
supply of provisions had also attained its maximum, it was evident
the Legislature ought to adopt some measure with regard to this im-
portant question. He looked at it as one which affected the
whole population of the country, and if It were necessary
increased employment should be given to the people in
order that they might obtain the support they ought to receive,
this could be done in no other way than by snaking some regula-
tion with respect to the Corn-laws. He thought a beneficial altera-
tion might be made which, without injuring the agriculturist; would
benefit the manufacturers. The present fluctuation of duty ope.
rated to prevent that fall benefit being received by their commercial
transactions with other countries, which they would otherwise
enjoy. Some said why cot impost corn from Canada? Be.
cause it was impossible to ascertain what price would be
obtained in this country ; but if they kept the price of
corn moderate, in which the alteration would not exceed 10
or 15 per cent., they could send their manufactures to obtain
corn to the benefit alike of the manufactures and the population
of the country. What he contended was that the Corn.laws ope-
rated without advantage to the manufacturer or agriculturist. No
great interest could be injured without every other class of the coin-
mutiny suffering in consequence. He should, therefore, regret the
adoption of any measure which would at all injure the agricultural in.
terest. What he wished was, some plan by which no interest would
be injured, but the community greatly benefited, which he was per-
suaded was possible. Another class greatly affected by the high
price of bread was the small fundholders. He should therefore
seriously snpport an application to Parliament.
Mr. GALLOWAY thought they should discuss this important slues-
tion before a larger assembly, and wished an adjournment.—(No,
no.) He wished a total repeal, but thought at present the safest
plan was to obtain a moderate fixed duty. It had been said this
was not a poor man's question ; he should like to know who were
so much interested in it as the poor ? All classes
were deeply interested in it, but the poor of all classes especially.
Everything was regulated by supply and demand,and it was a com-
plete fallacy to suppose that the price of corns had:any effect what-
ever in the price of labour. If these laws were not repealed, he
was firmly convinced that the best interests of the country would
suffer. He believed that there was a difference of at least 60 per
cent. between the price of food in this ceunkv and on the continent.
The exclusive advantages :which England enjoyed from her ma-
chinery were hers no longer, and flo,erce,igalnly:coamppoeotritmicealnh,saqdueensotiromno,uasnldy
increased within the last few years, hy which the manufacturing
superiority of England was almost annihilated. He thought the
had his best support.—("Question.")
")
repeated what had beenm. -
asserted,rici that
of men than the •
a more ignorant miserable set
um
they
than
present
then t receivedrewa rd werewhich
upon 9s—how could they,
la.
bourers did not exist.
le,sier,aegirr)tloticeuudn.ldasr particularly
acatoictt
How could they
a week, educate themselse•ey;
it wlars . questionosnT wasAthc
even upon their own maximum of
given them more as a charitable
for pittance,
labour. The national debt
they were entitled to receive
but not one of them
had been referred to by several gentlemen,
or their families ? In fact the wages
had pointed out the ) Aftor some furthar obser-
and the national debt.—(Hear, hear..
that he could not consent
agitetsanthceey,
vations, Mr, Stacey concluded by saying .
n.
most remote connection between the Corn-laws
to any alteration in the terms of his motion.
by a large majority.
to introduce instead
Mr. STEVENS then moved as an amendment,
The question was then put, and the amendment was negatived
of the words " a free trade," the words" a moderate fixed duty."
• nment of the
An attempt was then made to move the acljour
After a short discussion, the amendment was carried by a large
majority.
Court, which was negatived.
The motion for the petition in the amended
terms was then
agreed to, and the Court adjourned.

ESSEX.--On Monday last a meeting of the no-
bility, clergy, gentry, and inhabitants was held in the County
Room at the Shire Ball, for the purpose of forming a Branch
of the London Diocesan Board of Education.