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. Wilson, and we must place sonic
of both gentlemen's remarks before our readers.

Mr. COBDEN, who brought forward the question,
said—l must 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 are 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 puh•
lished five or six years ago, called 4‘ 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 Lloyd Jones, Mr. Hickson, and Mr. Senior—
these gentlemen gave it as their upinion, 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 20,0001. a year, would not
amount to the fraction of one-hundredth part of one per
cent. upon his income. So that it must be 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 protection ; it is
for the purpose of raising the price of corn grown in
this country ; that is the avowed object of the 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 103. a quarter be levied
on foreign provisions, that would be paying a tax for
protection of fifty millions a year, before one shilling
cordd 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 am 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 hold in my hand a specimen of cotton
grown in Manchester (by my friend Mr. Bazley, 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. Baz-
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 :

" The minimum cost of a glass-house, with a steam
or hot-water apparatus, to cover a statute acre of
ground, including the preparation of sod, would be
7,0001. ; upon which the least possible charge for inte-
rest may be rated at 5 per cent. Three or four la-
bourers or cultivators may be estimated at 1501. per
annum altogether; and coals for heating at 501. per
annum. A charge for tear and wear, with an allowance
for damages by storms, cannot be supposed to be over
calculated at 2001. per annum, or nearly 3 per cent.
Hence we have—

Interest at 5 per cent. £3so 0 0
Wear and tear
Labour
Coals

Rent, nil. £750 0 0
Now the maximum produce of cotton would not exceed
.5001bs. per statute acre per annum, therefore the cost
price would be 30s. per pound ; and, presuming the
quality to be equal to the average of Sea Islands,
which may be taken fairly. at Is. 6d., we have a cost

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 quantity at present worked
up at 500 millions of pounds a-year, and the price at
12 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 millions
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 labourers
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
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
in defence of the system of Corn-I mws, might be urged
in defence of our growth in this country of the cotton
we consume. There would obviously be very great
injury inflicted on the masses of the people—in fact,
I suppose the people still to purchase clothing, but
vou may judge at what a price—(Great applause)—
Now, this is precisely the operation 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 clay 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
taxation. Allowing for the very small amount which
they pay for taxes on beer, tea, coffee, sugar, &c.,
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 from:taxation, but actually profit by the
fiscal laws of this county.—(Applause.) Now, gen.:
tlemen, this is a state of things boding fearful con-
sequences. What was the cause of the anarchy
and the revolution which took place hi France
Was it not 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 are
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 totally 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 this 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 injustice,
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 attention
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-
trated to me in a very forcible manner by a farmer, a
plain roan, with whom 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 tie 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 a fresh series of bargains every year. 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 arc employed, but in what are they
employed ? Has it not been oer standing complaint
here for years that capital has been diverted
from agriculture to manufactures, that, instead
of beating 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 mills?—(Applause.)
Now, to divert that capital back to agriculture must be
a work, as we all know, of very considerable time ; and
until that capital 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 justice 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 should
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 having done so, I would say
leave the consequences to the God of justice—be just
and fear not.—(Loud applause.) I beg to move that
petitions be presented by this Council to both Houses
of Parliament, praying for 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 e principle
just in itself, but on the ground of a number of taxes
which, 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 3,226,2.58/. ; that they hear 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-
sively. 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. Gd. per quarter, and against
this we had to pay 663,279/. upon bills of exchange,
2,060,000/. upon probates and legacies, 1,021,814/. upon
marine and life insurances, 2,243,294/. to the post-office,
and 660,000/. duty on paper ; making a total of
6,648,000/, paid by the commercial classes 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
plause.) But he confessed that he did not
con-
sider it as a commercial question. He was inclined
to consider it as a question affecting .the poorer
a the
classes ; and the amount of poverty existing
at
country, as shown by the communications
mreceiv
ore of
bthee
time Anti-Corn-law Rooms, convinced urge
nefits to trade which were to be derived frome o
and a party of gen-
tlemen, nt
ift. the
necessity of repeal than any other arg
Some
time ago Mr. Ashworth, of Bolton, -
from personal observation the state of t
denten, went round from house to househe por,
tooa, andsce h
ascertain
would just read them the result :
fearful3oiton pfricotmurtehoef the
111ischbwoerxtliistendextin
of
ope-
ration of the Corn-laws. Ha said a number gentle-
dis‘t'rel\sisr
• tine of 1.400 individuals, whose
found 300 families, consisting gentle-
men who had visited the working classes there had
drLerttlae.
ts, 1051. 1 ls., which was
week, or, deductinot amount to more than 130/. par
no ren
whole income did
equal to 150. per head per week. Out of 3,200
houses in the par.ish they found 409 empty. Tnat of
the houses occupied, 1,000 of them were found tenanted
by
families who bad only 18d. per week to Eve upon,
1,200 whose income was under 25., and nearly 1,200
whose income was under 2s. Gd. per head per week.
Of these poor people 1,601 had only 500 beds amongst
them, 58of them sleeping three in a bed, 185 five in
a bed, 7S six in a bed, 42 seven in a bed ; in one place
eight' bad only one bed between them, and 23 were
,t
wholly without a bed to rest upon."
In juxta-position with this harrowing account of dis-

MORNING EDITION.

tress in the town he placed the following representation
of the condition of the agricultural labourer by an autho-
rity whom none would question. It was frotia.a4 ter
in a recent number of the John Bull, signect-,, ' s
Rudgc., D.D., llawkchurch." Dr- ItudgnikOttr to
have taken a very warm interest in the cmigra6l6 ues-
tion ; and his reasons for doing so were amply set forth
in his letter :

" If it shell be asked why I, as an humble individual,
have been so much interested in matters of this kind,
the following is given as an answer :—The agricultural
labourers of my parish are dreadfully oppressed by
betterp
Nno think
eva,ev situation
zyt
their
aaaae
nin:rondbtnd
temporal
mi
nr feel Hence
0 elwhich
nasi
ccel anehd condition
yi
exm they
caue
asi
their
friend; wg gi
aoseni ht
dl
gct
toooonsuesettme a
theseani thememigration,
rwwas
oetot
rot
objects
placedte,:r esa andutt
d.
to
when applied to I strongly recommend the measure.
Whet are the average wages per week of agricultural la-
bourers in my parish ? At the utmost only ss. 6d. per
week, after deducting Is. 9d. or 2s. for the miserable cot-
tages in which they live. Will any one say say that ss. 6d.
is sufficient to feed and clothe a man and his family ? But
there are times in which they do not receive even this
pittance—times in which work is not to be had—is not,
therefore, constant ; and I have the names of about
forty or fifty young and able-bodied men, who, during
the last autumn, could obtain no employment. In such
a state of poverty and uncertainty I have said to all
who have called at my house for information and ad-
vice, why not emigrate either into Canada or New Zea-
land, where your condition would be bettered—your
work constant, your wages good, and your passage to
the latter colony would be paid ? These persons have
applied in every direction for work, but without success ;
and I could send out to-morrow one hundred and
twenty-three agricultural labourers, including their wives
and children, provided they could raise the tutus suffl-
eient to pay for their outfi►."
The publication of these statements brought another
from Batley, Yorkshire, which, though he had occupied
much of their time already, he would read to the meet-
ing. The writer of this communication said :
" Sir,—While perusing your valuable Journal of the
14th instant, I met with an article, headed " Appalling
distress of the Lab surer and Artisan,' in which you give
an extract from a speech made by Mr. Ashworth, at the
Bol'on tea party, containing a deplorable account of the
distress prevailing in that district. I, Sir, quite agree
in the opinion expressed by you, that the distress of the
working classes is far greater than is generally known or
supposed to exist. lam the more confident that this is
the case from some facts which have recently come to
my knowledge on this subject. A few benevolent indivi-
duale,:retiding in the centre of this village, conceiving that
considerable distress prevailed in the neighbourhood,
commenced a subscription for the relief of the most
needy in their own locality. The sum realised was
about 40/., to be distributed in food, and some cotton
sheets for beds. In visiting the dwellings of the people
we found some of the inmates not only without food of
any kind, but also so destitute of covering to their beds
as to render it impossible for them to obtain anything
like warmth at this inclement season of the year. The
situation of some was truly heart-rending. In one
house there were the wife and three childen. On in-
quiring into their circumstances, she said, " Jim has
gone out on the road to-day ; but he has not been
able to go before for the last fortnight, having got
some dross into his ey e while breaking stones."
Bursting into a flood of tears, she said, point-
ing to one of the children (I use her own words),
That child is caling (wasting) away for the want
of proper support ; she has been iii, and now
wants something to raise her, and we cannot get
it for her.' It is true the woman was kneading some-
thing for bread, but it did not appear to be made
either of fliur, barley, or oatmeal ; if it contained any
portion of these, it must have been in the smallest
quantity ; it had every appearance of bran mixed with
water. It may be said by some that this was an ex-
treme case. It was, in some respects ; but, in other
instances, it was not only equalled, hut even surpassed.
In another house that we visited we found the oc-
cupants, a young man, his wife, and child, in a mise-
rable state of want. One of the neighbours, a poor
widow, said to us, Have you been at that house ?'
pointing to the place. lam afraid of finding them
dead in bed, when I get up in a morning, for mere
want. It is very little I can give them,' she said, but
I give them all I can spare, in order to keep them alive.'
These cases are not singular. Another case, which
came to my knowledge last night, I will mention.
Speaking to a neighbour on this subject, he said, I
have had a woman at my house this afternoon (Monday)
who has eaten nothing since Saturday.' He was an
operative, but he gave her some cold meat, which, he
sa:d, would very likely make her ill, having been so
long without food. In such a state of things are we
to expect anything like satisfaction or good-wili among
the labouring classes of society ? It is impossible."
But,lesving this argument out of the question, and re-
verting to the state of the poor, he felt convinced in his
own mind that this was the strongest point. 'file facts
he had read to them were better than any argument or
speech that could be made. The poor were nearly
starving, and they ware daily getting worse. This was
a fact which could not be looked at with indifference,
even by the landowner ; and the conviction must ulti-
mately force itself upon his mind, however startling,
that this was a state of things which could not con-
tinue.