The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-25 00:00:00

mer was told were enacted for his advantage ? No ; they
beheld a fearful competition among the farmers for farms,
and complaints that there ware no getting farms except
under such terms as placed the farmer in the condition ca
a serf under his landlord—(Cheers, and counter cheers)
—complaints of the depressed state of trade, so blocking
up all channels of employment that they could
not get their sons engaged in the different depart-
ments of business. Then let them look at the
small pittance awarded to the labourer in the
agricultural districts.—(lronical cheers.) Why, what
did the Agricultural Associations do ? and in alluding
to these Associations he could not but regret that
associations, established professedly for the improve-
ment of agriculture, should have lapsed into Conserva-
tive Associations.—(Cries of " Name, name.") Since
he was called upon to name an Association, he would
desire them to look at the proceedings at the Agricul-
tural Association at Saxmundhame th other day, which
exhibited all the symptoms of a Political Association. In
the first place, the usual insult had been paid to her
Majesty.—(Cheering and counter-cheering.) Her name
had been received with cold indifference, and with some
hisses, while the health of the Queen-Dowager had
been drunk with nine times nine, and one cheer more.
—(Loud cheering and counter-cheering.) Now, what
had they done after drinking the usual toasts ? He
beseeched the House to mark this. They had intro-
duced a collection of labourers, to whom they had given
rewards for having been able to bring up a small
family without having had recourse to parochial relief.
—(Cheers fromtthe Tory side.) What then ? They
admitted that the condition of the agricultural labourer
was one of such wretchedness that it was a matter of
astonishment, and worthy of a reward, if he were able
to bring up a small family without having recourse to
parochial relief—(Cheers from the Opposition.) Were
not the Agricultural Associations always striving to get
rid of the labourers from the agricultural districts ? Were
not propositions frequently made at the union boards to
vote money to send labourers to Manchester ?—(Cheers.)
Why, the Duke of Buckingham himself had recently
subscribed 1L to get rid of a family of labourers, in
which there were six sons, all capable of labour, and all
of good character—for the subscription had been raised
for them because they were of good character—to pay
their expenses from Buckinghamshire, where they could
obtain no work, to Manchester, in order that they might
endeavour to find employment there ?—(Cheers.) How
could they maintain such an argument, when they
knew that in the agricultural districts in Devonshire,
Wiltshire, and Buckinghamshire, the wages of
the labourer amounted only to six, seven, eight,
or nine shillings a week ? In Norfolk and Suffolk they
might perhaps be somewhat higher, but in consequence
of the high price of bread the agricultural labourer was
barely able to provide food for his family, and after
paying his rent he had nothing left to expendin clothing,
or to afford an education for his children, so that he
could in many instances scarcely afford to appear
decently clad in a place of worship. He defied Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to contradict these statements.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, what did Hon. Gentlemen do when
they talked of the distress ? Oh, they talked of the
causes of it—they said it was occasioned by over-produc-
tion—that the reason the people were out of employ-
ment was, that the manufacturers had employed too many
of them, and that if a few more were thrown out of em-
ployment there would be no distress at all. That, he
believed, was what the over-production argument
amounted to. Another attributed the distress to
Joint-stock Banks, fictitious capital, and things of that
sort. They speculated as to the causes of the distress ;
but what, he wanted to know, was the remedy ?—(Loud
cheers.) They were satisfied as to the existence of the
distress. Hon. Gentlemen opposite admitted that, awl
he contended that, being satisfied that the distress ex-
isted, it was their duty, without loss of time, to devise
some remedy.—(Cheers.) On his side of the House
they suggested a remedy.—(Loud cheers.) They said
the best thing was to extend the foreign trade of the
country, to seek for fresh customers abroad, and thus to
ensure unlimited employment to the population. On the
other side it was argued that the labourers ought to seek
for employment on the land. The answer to that was,
that the field of employment on land must necessarily
in an island be limited, but that it was impossible to set
bounds to the foreign trade, for that, as long as the
world continued to want manufactures, it must
go On increasing.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
but that, if that were checked, to expect to find employ-
ment for all in the land, would be contrary to common
sense.—(Cheers.) But the Right Hon. Baronet says,
look at Leeds, Hull, Liverpool, and London—the Mem-
bers for those places are to be found among the op-
ponents of the late Government—what do those
places say to free trade ? It was certainly true
that the Members of many commercial places
might be found among the supporters of the Right
Honourable Baronet.—(Cheers.) That was true ; but
that could not be taken as an argument against the opi-
nion of the country, in favour of free trade. Under
what circumstances had those Members been returned ?
The Right Hon. Baronet had been particularly careful
not to say what his policy would be, and that had given
his supporters an opportunity of talking fast and loose
on the subject of free trade.- Some of the Conservative
free-traders had said the Right Hon. Baronet was as
willing to grant free trade as the Melbourne Ministry
—that he had both the power and the will ; while they
had only the will without the power. Why, what had
been done at Manchester ? He had been opposed there
by the Right Hon. Gentleman now holding high office
under the Right Hon. Baronet's Government, and what
had been his conduct with regard to free trade? Had he
raised the cry "No free trade ?" No such thing ; he had
in substance said that the Right Hon. Baronet was at
heart a free trader.—(Cheers.) Many Conservatives,
free traders, had been induced to vote for Conservative
candidates, by the assurance that the Right Hon. Baronet
was only watching his opportunity to throw overboard
the landed interest; and quotations from a speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet in that House had been printed and
extensively circulated, with a view of showing that the
Right Hon. Baronet was actually against the Corn-laws.
The passage quoted was to the effect that the manufac-
turers were the main stay of the prosperity of the country,
and that the landed interest derived their prosperity
more from the prosperity of the manufacturing interest
than from the Corn-laws. That extract was made a
copious use of during the late elections, and had induced
many Conservative manufacturers to believe that the
Right Hon. Bart. was really disposed to support a free
trade policy. They had been told that Mr. Huskisson
was a Conservative and a free trader—that all the free
trade measures had been introduced by Conservatives,
and that the Whig Government had adopted free trade
only to save itself in its last agony. He would not im-
pute to the Right Hon. Bart. that he had given instruc-
tions on the subject, but certainly a system had been
adopted in the manufacturing districts to induce a belief
that the Right Hon. Bart. was disposed to a free trade
policy.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Why, in Manchester
placards had been issued, inscribed with " Free Trade,"
" Cheap Bread," " High Wages," " Vote for Murray and
Entwisle," "No Whigs," No Poor-law." That placard had
never been disavowed, although it had been alluded to
over and over again. Indeed there had been no reason
to disavow it, for the speeches and statements made were
in accordance with the placard. Now what would those
who had been induced by such means to support the
Right Hon. Baronet think when they saw the Duke of
Buckingham a Member of his Cabinet—(Cheers)—and
heard that Noble Duke declaring, as he had done the
other day to the farmers of Buckinghamshire, that he
had not changed one iota of his opinions, but that he was
determined to maintain the Corn-law in its present state?
—(Cheers.) Could they help feeling that there had
been some misunderstanding- on the subject ? The Right
Honourable Baronet had talked of examining minor
details—of altering the modes of taking the ave-
rages—but the Duke of Buckingham had raised
the cry of " No surrender."—(Great cheers.) How
could they reconcile these things with the idea that the
Right Hon. Baronet was the head of an united Cabinet?
—(Loud cheering.) But what did they propose to do
to remedy the existing distress ? Did the Right Hon.
]laronet mean to trust to the chapter of accidents ?
laid he mean to prorogue without proposing any remedy?
And did he imagine that by doing nothing' trade would
comae round—(Cries of "Hear, hear," and cheering.)
Must the poor man be left to the charitable relief of the
middle classes ? Did they not think, after the efforts
=lade to raise the independence of the labouring popula-
tion, that it would be unwise to leave the poor to charita-
ble relief and alms? Would they assign any reasonable
tane for the recovery- of trade ? Did they hope that
this relief would recover trade ? Ile had no such hope,
and there was an authority on the subject which Hon.
Gentleman on either side of the House would not be
disposed to question. He alluded to the Hon. and Rev.
Baptist Noel--(Cheers)—an authority whom they would
Ambniit to with respect,. an ornament to the Church, and
a leader of religious opinions.—(Laughter from the Mi-
aaisterial side of the House.) He asks "What is to be
done ? Tickets for coals and potatoes would not be suf-
ficiena—eharity, sermons would not fatten, but the earth
was amply sufficient for the production of food, and would
reward the poor with its riches ; and they had skill and
industry to work, if they had the epportunity,forthe
food with which Europe could supply them if only the duty
That Rev. Gentleman pro-
on foreign corn was fixed."
posed the remedy—the true remedy—for the distress of
the country ; and they should recollect it was not safe
to leave the country in its present state of intelligence and
knowledge, in such a state.—(Hear, hear.) He said it
was not safe, because the country was beginning to un-
derstand the question of the Penny Postage, and other
measures had spread tracts and information on
becoming
the sub-
ject through the country, and every class was
acquainted with the injustice of the Corn-law. He also
knew that the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet was
.aware of that injustice ; and he would read the state-
nnents made by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
4cashire at his late election, where he was opposed by Mr,
Aeaand.—(Laughter.) What was there to laugh at ?
ie hsd only read the papers, and he found that Mr.
Aciand had been proposed and seconded, and had a show
of hand.; almost equal to the Noble Lord.—(" No, no.")
But the electors were able to put questions to the
Noble Long!, which was a convenient mode of eliciting
what were the opinions of her Majesty's Government.
The first question put was, . " Does the Corn-law raise
The price of bread ?" And the Noble Lord said it was
the object of the Corn-law to raise it above its natural
level. lie went on to say " that the effect of this was an
increase in the rental of the landlords. He did not say
it was the intention of the Legislature to produce such
an effect." They would assume it was an incidental ef-
fect—(Cheers)---but all they wanted to know was, did
it raise the price of bread ? The third position 'was,
." he admitted freely and distinctly that the price of
lbread had no effect on the rise or fall of wages.,
(Cheers.) Now, mark that ! The very principle
for which the Corn-law League and thepolitical
economists were contending. What
-loorgnuaewtheausvers:_`7Thehnesethelaywhseardreflototion of the hand would be the
this ? Would they not a
in-
crease the rental of land, and do not increase wages."
Would he not come to the conclusion that the dainties of
the rich were purchased by his tears ?—(Cheers)—that
the tax on bread enabled the landlords to revel in