The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-05 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

At a meeting of the Town Council of Manchester on
Wednesday last it was unanimously resolved to petition
both Houses of Parliament for the total and immediate
abolition of the Corn and Provision-laws. At this
meeting Mr. Cobden, as usual, made an excellent
speech, as did Mr. G. Wilsoe, and we must place some
of both gentlemen's remarks before our readers.
Mr. COBDEN, who brought forward the question,
said—l !oust avow my belief that the question of the
Corn and Provision laws is as much a local question in
Manchester as that of Poor-rates. Police-rates, or any
other local matter ; inasmuch as I believe that a vast
amount of your local expenses arise out of the operation
of these laws. I may, I believe, further congratulate
you and the town generally, that we arc now arrived at
that point in which there is no one to be found in Man-
chester who is in favour of the Corn-law as it now
stands.—(Applause.) The only question now is, as to
the change we seek. In a small pamphlet, which I pub•
lished five or six years ago, called " England, Ireland,
and America," I stated that I had no objection
to a fixed duty on corn, any more than I had
to a fixed duty on coffee, or sugar, or any other
produce. Some gentleman in London, a stranger to
me, but a friend to truth, wrote me a letter, drawing
my attention to the difference that existed between
levying a duty on an article grown at home and one
which was of foreign produce only.—(Hear, hear.) I
confess a very little inquiry satisfied my mind that I
was entirely wrong. My first duty, under such circum-
stances, was to change my opinion, and to advocate
what I then believed to be right. A duty on corn
must obviously be a tax which will press on the lowest
classes the heaviest, and the pressure of which will be
just in proportion to their inability to pay the tax. It
has been mentioned in that admirable document, the
" Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the
State of the Hand-loom Weavers," consisting of Mr.
Samuel Lleyd Jones, Mr. Hickson, and Mr. Senior—
these gentlemen gave it as their opinion, grounded on
experience and extensive inquiry, that an ordinary fa-
mily of the labouring class consumes ss. worth of
bread in a week- They then suppose that a duty of
10s. a quarter is levied upon wheat ; and that duty,
they say, would amount to 10 per cent, upon the in-
come of a labouring man, whose family was consum-
ing ss. worth of bread per week. Now the same duty
upon a nobleman, with his 20,000/. a year, would aot
amount to the fraction of one-hundredth part of one per
cent. upon his income. So that it must he obvious that
a tax levied upon wheat, in other words a tax upon bread,
must be an unjust tax, even as a tax for the purpose
of revenue. But. the tax upon the importation of
wheat into England is not levied for the purpose of re
venue alone, but for the purpose of protetion ; it is
for the purpose of raising the price of corn grown in
this country ; that is the avowed object of ere Corn-
law.—(Applause.) The consequence of that will be,
that for every shilling, which you pay upon the foreign
corn that is imported into this country, you pay—and
previously pay—a shilling upon every quarter of corn
grown in this country ; and that tax for protection or
monopoly is paid to the landowners before the duty can
be levied upon the corn that is imported from abroad.
—(Hear, hear.) Let us then suppose that the duty
was 10s. a quarter, and the amount of corn produced
in this country annually was fifty millions of quarters ;
suppose, also, that the amount of other provisions,
meat, butter, eggs, and so on, is, as is estimated by a
high authority, equal to fifty millions more ; making
the total of the home growth equal to one hundred
millions of quarters ; and if lOs. a quarter be levied
on foreign provisions, that would be pa)ing a tax for
protection of fifty millions a year, before one shilling
could come into the revenue at all. And suppose you
imported corn and provisions from abroad equivalent
to five millions of quarters, you would then pay
to the revenue 2,500,000/., whilst you would have
previously paid for monopoly fifty millions. That is
obviously so clumsy and unjust a mode of raising a re-
venue, that it cannot be supported for one moment, on
the principles of either justice or expediency.—(Ap-
plause.) Now, of course, it will not be supposed that
I sin contending that the landowners pocket the whole
of this money ; a great deal of it goes for waste. And
I could not better illustrate the way in which it is
wasted, than by supposing a case with reference to
another article of produce, one which will be familiar
t all the gentlemen present. I will suppose that the
whole of the cotton which is consumed in England was
grown in England ; and this I believe is not an impos-
sible case. I hell in my hand a specimen of cotton
grown in Manchester (by my friend Mr. Maley, in his
engine house), which in staple is superior to any of the
cotton exhibited in this market, superior even to the
Sea Island cotton. Now, I have requested Mr. Ra-
ley to favour me with an estimate of what would be
the cost of growing the whole amount of cotton
which we consume here in this country. This is his
calculation :

" Toe minimum cost of a glass-house, with a steam
or hot-water apparatus, to cover a statute acre of
around, including the 'preparation of soil, would be
7,000/. ; upon which the least possible charge for inte-
rest may be rated at 5 per cent. Three or four I
bourers or cultivators may be estimated at 150/. per
lnnum altogether ; and coals for heating at 50/. per
annum. A charge for tear and wear, with an allowance
for damages by storms, cannot be supposed to be over
calculated at '2OO/, per annum, or nearly 3 per cent.
Hence we have—
Interest at 5 per cent. £3so 0 0
Wear and tear
Labour

Coals

AO 0 0

Rent, nil. £750 0 0
Now the maximum produce of cotton would not exceed
50011)s. per statute acre per annum, therefore the cost
price would be 30e. per pound ; and, presuming the
quality to be equal to the average of Sea Islands,
which may be taken fairly at Is. ad., we have a cost

1 twenty times as much as that of the first-class cotton in
use anywhere. About a million statute acres would
grow the whole of the.cotton consumed yearly in Great
Britain and Ireland.
" Now let us see how much it would cost for mono-
poly, if we were to produce all the cotton consumed in
this country. I will take the. qua'Aity at present worked
up at 500 million:; of pounds a-year, and the price at
i 2 millions sterling. This cost of 12 millions would
then be increased twenty-fold ; the cotton which we now
use would cost 240,000,000/. ; and the price paid for
monopoly would be the difference between 12 mid'ons
and 240 millions."
Now supposing such a state of things as this to be
arrived at ; suppose that we had a million of acres co-
vered with glass, and two or three millions of leboutere
employed in these hot houses ; and that we had a body
of men, plumbers and glaziers, who, along with the ,
owners of this land, had the possession of the House of I
Lords and the House of Commons, I have no doubt at all
that very good arguments then might be found, I have
no doubt that every argument which is now advanced I
in defence of the system of Corn-laws, might be ureed
in defence of our growth in this country of the cotton
we consume. There would obviously be very great
injury inflicted on the masse; of the people—in fact,
I suppose the people still to purchase clothing, but
you may judge at what a price—(Great applause)—
Now, this is precisely the operafon of the Corn-laws.
The waste is to bring bones from South America,
to bring soda from South America, to manure our
land, to cover over what should be rabbit warrens,
or ell,/ beds, or what should be turned into
brick fields, with an exotic soil, to enable us to grow
corn here ; in fact, we are bringing manure, rather
than we will bring corn. --(Applause.) Now, I am
sure it may be shown from these facts that the domi-
nant class in this country are wholly exempted from
t ixation. Allowing for the very small amount which
they pay for taxes on beer, tea, coffee, sugar, Bze.,
articles which press much more heavily upon the mid-
dle and lower classes than upon the rich,—if we take
into account what they pay of those taxes, and set off
against it the amount which they levy from the labour-
ing classes, principally as a tax upon corn, I think it
might be shown that the dominant class are not only
wholly exempt fromataxation, but actually profit by the
fiscal laws of this county.—(Applause.) Now, gen-
tlemen, this is a state _ c\f thins boding fearful C 213..
sequences. What was the cause of the anarchy
and the revolution which took place in France ?
Was it rot that the noblesse had exempted them-
selves from taxation, that they had raised the price
of bread, that the poor people were made
to pay the whole of the burdens of the State ; was not
that the cause of the revolution in France? And we
have now the same amount of injustice, but only in
another form, in this country, which in France led to
the overthrow of the Government of that nation.—
( Hear, hear.) What caused the downfal of Venice ?
The aristocracy there was allowed, by placing their
names in a golden book, to become pensioners upon the
State ; they thus defrauded the people of their property,
and then came the revolution. And what difference
does it make to a nation whether the aristocracy ere
allowed, by placing their names in a golden book, to live
upon the labour of the people, or whether they do it by
the passing of Corn-laws mysteriously and cunningly,
framed for answering the very same end ?—(Hear. and
applause.) I therefore cannot consent to the continu-
ance of such a law, with such consequences before me,
because it is supposed that certain inconveniences,
or certain evils might arise in another direction,
if we repealed that most unrighteous law, and
repealed it tot Ally and immediately. But Iby no means
say that the law which repeals the Corn-laws imme-
diately shall not comprise a measure which relieves ex-
isting interests. Ido not say that a measure may not
be devised for doing justice to the farmers, at the same
time that it shall do justice to the great body of the
people.—(Applause.) Therefore, we must not continue
this law—we must not perpetuate this crying injustit e,
on the assumption that no means would be afforded of
adjusting the differences which might exist between
landlord and tenant.—(Cheers.) I do not think that
any one will dispute the justice of putting an imme-
diate end to such an inordinate, such a crying iniquity
as I have been describing.—(Much applause.) But
the expediency of so doing may very fairly come un-
der our consideration. I have given much aq2ntion
to this subject, and have made many inquiries about
it amongst agriculturists themselves ; and I find that
the universal opinion is, that if the Corn-law is to be
abolished, to be totally repealed, then the best thing for
the farmer is that it should be repealed immediately and
not gradually.—(Applause.) I had that once illus-
tratod to tne in a very forcible manner by a farmer, a
plain man, with;whorn I was conversing, who said—" If
you take off a shilling a year, until you get it all off, it
will be like cutting off that sheep-dog's tail one inch
every day, instead of taking it off at once."—(Applause
and laughter.) If you repeal the law at once, you give
the tenant a good ground for the reduction of his rent,
and the farmer is enabled to go to his landlord with a
strong case for adjustment ; but by a vanishing duty,
which shall gradually go down to nothing, you will give
rise to is fresh series of bargains every se ;r. But there is
another view which the alarmists take of this question,
that a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws
would give rise to a sudden inundation of corn from
abroad. Now there is nothing which is more fallacious
than this. There is not a great stock of corn abroad,
not even in the world at large. Ido not think that at
any period the surplus of corn in the world, after pro-
viding for the wants of the whole of the people, would
be equal to half a year's consumption in England. Not
an arm in Europe, not a shilling of capital in Europe, is
unemployed ; all are employed, but in what are they
employed ? Has it not been os r standing complaint
here for years that capital Las been diverted
from agriculture to manufactures, that, instead
of heating their spears into plough shares, they have
worked up their iron into spindles ; that, instead of
rearing their children to the plough, they have bred
them to the loom and the jenny ; and that the. capital
which should have been employed in the cultivation of
the soil, in rendering streams navigable, and in the con-
struction of canals, and other facilities for the trans-
mission of their agricultural produce, has been devoted
to the productions of manufactures, has been invested in
the erection of warehouses and mill,?—(Applause.)
Now, to divert that capital back to agriculture must be
a work, as we all know, of very considerable time ; and
until that capind has been so directed back to agricul-
ture, there can be no great increase, no sudden influx
of corn consequent on the repeal of our Corn-
laws.—(Great applause.) It is on these grounds,
both of jus.tice and expediency, that looking
to the interests of the whole of the community, I
think that if the Corn-law is to be abolished, it shoul I
be immediately abolished. It is on these grounds that
I would submit with all deference to your attention,
the question of presenting a petition to Parliament
for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.
I would exhort those who have any fears on this ques-
tion to endeavour to satisfy' their minds what is strictly
just in this case ; and haling done so, I would say
leave the consequences to the God of justice—be just
and fear not.—(Loud appLe:e.) I beg to move that
petitions be presented by this Council to both Houses
of Parliament, praying fcr the total and immediate
repeal of the Corn-laws.—(Applause.)
Mr. GEORGE WILSON was one of those who could
never see why these laws should have been enacted. If
he asked the agriculturists themselves what right they
had to protection, they did not claim it as a principle
just in itself, but on the ground of a number of taxes
7.'hich, as they said, fall upon land exclusively. From
that list he found it alleged that they bore 65 per cent.
of the Poor's-rate, or 3,226,258/. ; that they bear the
land-tax exclusively, which is 1,196,991/. ; that they
bear half of the assessed taxes, equal to 1,823,578/. ;
and about 300,000/. in highway rates, making a total of
6,544,827/. per annum, which falls upon land exclu-
skely. Now, if we for a moment looked at
the effect of this on the amount of corn
grown in the country—taking that amount at fifty-four
millions of quarters—we should find that it did not
amount to more than 2s. 6d. per qua; ter, and against
this we had to pay 663,2791. upon bills of exchange,
2,060,000/. upon probates and legacies, 1,021,8141, Upon
marine and life insuraeces, 2,243,2941, to the post-office,
and 660,000/. duty on paper ; making a total of
6,648,000/. paid by the commercial elasees as a set-off
against the duties borne by the landed interest. Taking
it merely as a question of taxation imposed upon the
:Agricultural and commercial classes respectively, then
he found here were taxes levied on the one exclusively
which could be placed as a set-off against those borne
by the other, so that the agriculturists had clearly no
claim to protection on this ground whatever.—(Ap-
+pietism.) But he confessed that lie did not con-
sider it as a commersial question. He was inclined
to consider it as a quest-on affecting the poorer
classes ; and the amount of poverty existing in the
country, as shown by the communications received at
the Anti-Corn-law Rooms, convinced him more of the
necessity of repeal tl an any other argument of the be-
nefits to trade which were to he derived from it. Some
time ago Mr. Ashworth, of Bolton, and a party of gen-
tlemen, went round from house to house to ascertain
from personal observation the state of the poor, and lie
would just road them the result :
" Mr. Ashworth next drew a fearful picture of the
distress which existed in Little Bolton from the ope-
ration of the Corn-laws. Ha said a number of gentle-
men who hail visited the working classes there had
found 300 families, consisting of 1.400 indtii‘iadnuall3s,o. wlliosc
whole income did not amount to moreper
week. . e
m Outpt empty.
of
That 3,2 0
ofo
week, or, deducting rents, 1051. Ifs., which was
equal to 151 d. per head per v
houses in the parish they found 409
_
of themper wwieereekto
tuon dh
live
ee n
upon
np toend,
1,000
the houses occupied,
juBnd. der s. , and nearly 1,300
bly,2ofoamwilhieassewhinocohmada ownlays
whose income was under 2s. 6d. par head per week.
OF these seses.iror
people 1,601 had only 500 beds amongst
them, them sleeping three in a bed, 185 five in
a bed, 7S six in a bed, 42 seven in a bed ; in one place
eighty had only, one bed between them, and 23 were
wholly without a bed to rest upon."
In juxtaposition with this harrowing account of dis-