The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

( Hear, hear.) It is impossible—it is impossible to over-rate it.
I am quite aware of the sympathy which actuates you for the
poor ; I donut agree with the,: who charge you with a want of
sympathy ; Ido believe that there is as much sincere end honest
desire on your part to sympathise wi:h the poor, as there exist/
in this House. But you cannot increase direct taxation. I
believe you would if you could—but yod already raise seven
millions in stamps—five millions in property-tax--four millions
by the assessed-taxes, and these are limits beyond which ydi
cannot possibly go. If yen add to the income-tax, you will not
be benefiting the poor. Though the taxation may appear to be
falling on the rich, it will have no less injurious effect.
The Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, would have me to
state what the price of wheat would be after the abolition of
protection. Well, .I have repeatedly replied, and I once more
state, that it is impossible for me fo know what the price may
be hereafter. The Noble Lord in reply to that said, that its
1835, a cargo of wheat had come to this country from Dant •
zic, -the price of which, after all expenses were paid,
amounted to 395. ; and insisted that, supposing there was no
duty on the importation of foreign wheat, the price would fall
to the came level as it did then. I am not prepared to
admit that the price would be lower, for the comparison he
made was not a true criterion by which the matter could be tested.
That was my statement. The Noble Lord had got a return of
certain cargoes of corn that came to this country from Dant zic, and
he contended that because in 1839 the price of corn amounted
to only 26s , that if you establish free-trade the price must ne-
cessarily not exceed that amount. I firmly believe, however,
that if a free-trade in corn existed at this moment, the price
would not be less than 39s.—the price which it was in 1835. It
is impossible, however, to argue what the price of corn may be
when the ports are freely opened; for until the system is in
operation, no argument can be raised on the matter which can
be relied on with any degree of accuracy. You sent Mr.
Jacob to the Continent, to report what the price of corn was in
the different states of Europe. He said in his report, that
although there would be a large surplus of corn to be imported
into this country, he could not think the price would fall below
38s. That was the true state of the case. If you encourage
production abroad, there must necessarily be a fictitious price
given to corn, and the Noble Lord argued from the instance
he brought forward, that that price would be the rule in all
cases. It was for that reason that I said, that even were there
free- trade in corn in 1835, the price would not fall below 355.
The British consuls in different places were also required to re-
port what was the quantity of wheat which could be annually
sent to this country from the places where they respectively re-
sided, and at what price. Now what was the answer?
The general answer was, that it could not be im-
ported free on board under 465. 6d. per quarter, and that
general freight would amount to 4s. 6d. In one place the price
was 395. ld., and the freight from 4s. 6d. to ss. At Dantzic
the price was 40s. and the freight 3s. 6d. At Hamburgh the
price was from 35s to 465., and the freight from 2s. 6d. to ss.
Relying, then, upon the opinion of Mr. Jacobs, and relying
upon the returns of your own consuls, as to what the price of
wheat would be free on board, at those ports from
which it may be expected—relying upon these two
Parliamentary returns, I repeat to you, that with
free trade in corn, the price will not be reduced below
395., as it was in 1835, la 1822, although agricultural
distress prevailed to a very great extent, the price of wheat
did not fall below 385., and in 1835 it did not fall below 395.
No foreign competition existed in either case, and although in
1835 the prise fell to 395. Id., that depression was entirely to
be attributed to the abundance of your own ha vest. In 1836,
following the example of 1822, no foreign corn was admitted,
yet a Parliamentary Committee was appointed to see what
remedies could be applied for the purpose of relieving the great
distress which then prevailed. I was attempting, therefore, to
show looking at the immense population—looking at the
enormous masses of people who made wheat the principal
source of subsistence, of what great importance it was that
the price should be as moderate as possible. I have shown,
then, that half of their expenditure went to the purchase of
wheat, and I wish to know what we can do better than to make
this article as moderate in price as we can ?—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) If we can give a guarantee that the price
would not rise above 70s. or 80s., surely that would be
an advantage of immense importance to the labburing classes.
We are about to try maize, and other articles, to meet anything
like a rise in corn. Suppose corn ahould fail, we shall have
maize to make up for the failure ? and I am sure if that article
should fail that we shall not be exposed to such extreme want
from the fact of our having Indian maize to rely on Taking
the whole circumstances into consideration, I do consider that
the labourer's interest is deeply at stake in this question. Ido
think the condition of the agricultural labourer ought to be a
question of consideration. If then you can rely upon the
system of protection, why is it that you cannot exhibit a
happier condition of the labourer than we have at pre-
sent ?—( Hear, hear. )
Colonel SIBTHORP—Give protection to corn.
Sir R. PEEL—Yes, you have had protection to the agri-
cultural interest, and what is the condition of the labourer ?
You have had protection to corn, and what is the result ?
( Hear, hear.) If the price of corn had such an effect upon
the wages of the agricultural labourer, why is it, that the
wages of the manufacturing labourer has been much higher
than the former class of labourer, at a period before the
rise in corn took place. But there is no comparison between
the wages of the agricultural labourer and the price of wheat.
If the wages of the agricultural labourer varied with the price
of wheat, why were wages 13s. in Kent, when they were only
Bs. in Wiltshire? Now, as we find the labourer employed
in the manufacturing districts, we invariably find that wages
are much higher, and indeed the wages of the agricultural
labourers adjacent to a manufacturing district are always higher
than in the purely agricultural districts. If this is not the
case, how is it we find the agricultural labourer paid 13s.
in Lincolnshire, and Bs. and 9s. in Wiltshire, and
other places? Why, because, not only was the land
adjacent to a manufacturing district, but because it
was brought into better cultivation than in other places. I
wish to show that where skill is employed to cultivate the land,
remunerating prices can be had for the farmer and the
labourer.

Colonel SIBTHORP— The wages were higher because
there was a remunerating price for corn?
Sir R. PEEL—There was just as much a remunerating
price in the parts where low wages were paid, as in the others ;
and I think the Hon. and Gallant Member might easily reason
that to be the fact, without any material stretch of his logical
faculty.—( Loud laughter.) This, then, being the case, can
we say that the state of the agricultural labourer is as it ought
to be? Was the state of the men who had to work for their
bread so laboriously in that state which it ought to be?
Are you, not, then, I ask, deeply interested in rendering less
irksome the social condition of the great mass of the popula-
tion of this empire ?—( Hear, hear.) Believe me, the great
point which you have to attain is to appease the apprehensions
of the people, and that the only way to attain that is to let
them have, in the first instance, abundance of food.—(Cheers. )
You may in vain attempt to induce habits of cleanliness and
purity in their dwellings, and all the other elements of social
comfort, but they will fail, if you do not give them, in the first
instance, abundance of food.—( Hear, hear.) If there be any
apprehension on the minds of the population that there
is likely to be a scarcity of food, depend upon it it will be
in vain for you to try and induce any improvement in
their social condition. Hon. Members may laugh at this if
they will ; but allow sue to tell them that the last three years'
experience must have proved that lam correct. I will quote a
few figures, in order to show that I am correct, and I will quote
none that lam not prepared to verify. Now take the variations
in the prices of wheat from the year 1837 to the present time.
I took care to have accounts furnished me from farmers in
the purely agricultural districts, of the amount of wages paid
to their labourers from the year 1837 to 1844 inclusive, and it
amounted to this in the Sudbury Union in Dorsetshire. The
sums I am now about to qu ,te are those which the labourer
received in money and in beer, and the comparative
amount of wages in summer and in winter. Let me also
remind the House that since the year 1837, prices of corn and of
labour varied very much. In the year 1837, the price of wheat was
555. 10d. ; in 1838, it was 645. 71: ; in 1839, it was 765. Bd.; in
1840, it was 655. 4.d. ; in 1841, it was 665. 4d. ; in 1842, it war 575.
3d. ; in 1843, it was 505.; in 1844, it was 51s ; and in 1845 it was
555. 10d. Therefore you see that since 1837 to 1845, the price of
wheat varied In the proportions which I have stated. But now let
me observe that I have also seen a disposition iu this! country, I
regret to say, to substitute the potato for wheat. We have heard
much of the allotment system, and we have been told that it has
been adopted most benevolently; but I shall only say that I think
this feeling only tends to reduce the peasantry of this country to the
OW of the Irish peasantry—(Hear, hear)—and I should consider
it a great calamity indeed that the potato should be
substituted Is this country for the use of wheat.—(Hear, hear.)
I will now give you the variation in the rate of wages in Dorset
from the year 1837 upwards. In 1837, the wages amounted to 10s. ;
in 1833 to 1 is. ; in 1839 to lls.; in 1840 to 1 Is.; in 1841 tolls.; in
1842 to 11s. ; in 1843 to lie. ; and in 1844 to 108.—(11ear, hear.) In
East Suffolk, the variation of wages has been from Bs. to 10s. per
week, and the supply of labour iu that quarter is greater than the
demand ; and consequently the farmers pay what they like.' In
West Surf Alf. the wages paid fluctuate between 9s. and 10a. per week,
that is when task labour is not employed. lam not Saying that 10s.
per week is the maximum of wages, because I know there is extra
pay in the harvest. • Now is this not demonstrable of the fact with
which I set out?—(Hear, hear.) If I show you that in eight years,
there being no rise in the rate of wages, but a considerable advance
in the price of corn, do I not demonstrate the position with which I
set out ?—(Cheers.) Have I not proved the fallacy o f the doctrines
.of-Hon. Gentlemen who contend for thebpPosite?--(Rencwed cheers.)
Therefore" we cannot continue the existing law on the ground that
it is for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. ' I believe that Adam
Smith's doctrine is true, although he says in some part of his works
that there is a tendency in-the rate of wages to increase according to
the price of corn. He says that the rate of wages depends on the
country being in a fiouri-hing state, and the amount of capital ap-
plicable to the labouring interest. And it is the flourishing state of
agriculture, manufacture and commerce, and not the price of pro-
vision, that regulates the rate of wages. So I say, that by removing
" the restrictions on industry, we can increase the demand for labour,
and that is the mode by which we are to raise the wages of the agri-
cultural labourer, and not by raising the price of food. Let us observe
what advantages we shall gain by it. it eannot be denied that
we shall guard against the rapid, increase of prices, and relieve
ourselves from the responsibility of regulating the supply of food.
My Right Hon. Friend has told me what has passed since this mea-
sure has been brought forward. I could prove to you, if I thought it
necessary, from various parts of this country ; that there is no tariff.
with respect to the prices of land. I could adduce en instance re-
specting Scotland. There have been 11 farms in Roxburgh let since
the proposal of this measure by Government. I could prove the
enormous price given for land in this country, and where capital and
skill are most employed there is no apprehension of this measure.
I could prove that in Lincolnshire several farms have been let since
this measure was introduced. I could show that the agricultural
1 portion of the community exists on this subject. If a law could
be maintained, that would protect bad farming and insufficient
capital protection is the law best calculated fur such a purpose. I do
not deny that there may be individual cases of injury. There may
be suffering—there will be property encumbered, and tenants in-
jured, but on the whole, compare that injury with the advantage you
gain—compare it with the security you gain against ruinous prices—
with the comfort you secure to yourselves, in not being responsible
in times of scarcity for the supply of food. Compare all that with
the advantage that may he done, and see from which side the most
benefit is likely to accrue to the agricultural interest. Look at the
probable advantage to the labouring classes ; look at the
security of your own positions, which I believe
will be elevated, and not depressed, and the legiti-
mate influence you will exercise in this state of things.
In making this concession, my firm belief is that I do not act as an
onemy to that interest with which my own is so intimately identified.
In making this proposal on the part of the Government, I intended
it to be for the benefit of all classes ; for you could not expect to con-
tinue enforcing the endurance of protection. Was not the case one
for the agricultural interest to consider impartially ?: You say that
the present time is one of prosperity, and is not that an additional
argument in favour of this measure ? You can alter it with honour
to yourselves, and without fearing the:infliction of iinjary. The llon.
Gentleman who spoke before me said that there was no fear of any
scarcity this year. He said that we would get over two years with-
out any cause for apprehension. Is not that an additional proof
that this is the best time for the introduction of this measure'? Con-
sider all these things—consider how long this law could have been
maintained. It might be maintained for a time, but it cannot be
permanently secured with that degree of good feeling which is so es-
sential to a good Government; and if it could not, is not the time
most favourable for the alteration. The calamities of Ireland were
the causes of this measure, but they would not in themselves justify
the alteration of the law. It forces on you the necessity of consider-
ing what you will do when the period of suspension arrives. The
calamities I have spoken. of would force that consideration
upon you. Now these are the reasons I had for the
alteration of the law, and for which, with a clear conscience, I have
encountered obloquy, and submitted to the loss of your confidence,
which I deeply lament; but which I must incur.—(Hear, hear, from
the Protectionists.)—The. Hou. Gentleman has said that the proposal
of this measure was some political manoeuvre. What object could I
have?—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) What end could I answer
by making such a proposition as this? I wished to relieve a terrible
calamity. Honaurable Gentlemen have told me, with assurance,
that my stay in office, as a Minister, will not be long.—(sear, hear,
from the Protectionists.) Well then, the more confident they
should feel that this is no political measure. (Immense
cheering from the Opposition.) Honourable Gentlemen ask
me how long T can count on the support of the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite ? lam frank with you, as I have been on all other occasions.
Oh, oh," from the protectionists, and loud cheers from the oppo-
sition.) I have no right to place any confidence in their support,
but it is by their agency this measure will most probably pass into a
. It is not on personal, but ou public grounds, that I feel, as a
1p71,11c man, the obligation I am under to those Hon. Gentlemen for
their support of the present measure. However much I may be
indebted to uvein for not doing anything to embarrass the progress of
the present bill, I feel I have no right to claim their futnre
support. That question settled, the difference between us will
remain the NUM AS before. I freely Adhalt Viet I