The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-19 00:00:00

to do it when ti e manufacturers were employed and con-
tented, than to du it under the pressure of their great dis-
tress. He would not then enter into the subject ; hut he
could not avoid making an observation or two. For ex-
ample, he pot it to gentlemen to consider for one naorrent
what would have been the state of the hand-loom weavers
in Lancashire at this time, if the corn trade hid been*Town open and kept open since the peace? It re plain
that there would have been a steady demand for the pro-
duce of their labour to pay for the foreign corn, and
they would have been much better off than they now
were. If that market had been established they weuld
have been continued in employment, and they would not
have had the mortification of seeing the raw material
—for be could call cotton twist nothing but the raw ma-
terial, it having undergone only one cperation—exported
instead of the produce of their labour. With free trade in
corn, cotton cloth, and not twist, would have been ex-
ported. That was a view of the question which was of
great importance to these people. He believed, when it
was closely examined, it would be proved that the present
system was the worst p-ssible. We could not wholly dis-
pense with foreign corn, hut instead of obtaining a ready
supply by means of our cotton goods, continually exported,
whenever it became necessary to buy foreign corn, gold
had to be sent out of the country in the first instance.
The exchange went against us, and there immediately
ensued a risk of panic. He bad seen only one, but that
was a time which he never wished to see again. It was
necessary to keep a supply of precious metals, but the-,e
was great danger of that supply being diminished ender
the present system; whereas, if there was a regular trade
in cotton and corn, the deficiency of a harvest could occa-
sion no such evil consequences. The landed gentlemen
spoke as if they bore all the burden of the poor laws.
That he denied. The large manufacturing towns absorbed
a large part of the surplus population of the country, and
when that population was not employed the town people
had to support it. He believed the manufacturing com-
munity with which he was connected, supported not less
than 40,000 natives of the sister kingdom. He was quite
ready to go into an investigation of the subject, an I he
regretted it had not been brought forward at the time when
a subject of far less interest—(Hear, bear)—the Coercive
Bill for Ireland, occupied the attention of the House.
They might then have had time to do an act of justice to
the country, and till that was done, till the corn laws
were repealed, all the reductions in expenditure wh ch
could be made, all the reductions of taxation possible,
would give the country no relief.---(Hear.)
Mr. PEASE did not defend the corn laws on principle,
but he was satisfied that the present was not the proper
time to alter them. He was connected with both manu-
facturers and agriculturists, and he was convinced that
his manufacturing constituents were assured, that if they
crippled their agricultural neighbours, they would cripple
their best customers. They were also assured that if the
corn laws were repealed, it would not be one part only of
the land which would go out of cultivation, but the whole.
If the manufacturers were willing to take upon themselves
the whole burdens of the landlords, they might open the
corn trade; but unless they were willing to do that, to
open the trade, to allow of importation, even at a low rate
of fixed duty, would not destroy a part of the agricultural
interest, but the whole. Till the manufacturers were
ready to take upon themselves all the burdens of the I inded
interest, the protecting duty must be continued.
Mr. W. WHITMORE supported the motion. He
thought that the v iews of the Hon. Member for Durham
were quite incorrect, and that a free trade in corn, far
from injuring the lande-1 interest, would promote its pros-
perity. It would benefit the landed interest by increasing
trade and wealth, and supplying food and employment to
an increasing population, which would create an increased
demand for corn, and be the surest foundation of the land-
lord's welfare.
Mr. BENETT said, that to have an open trade would
lower the price of corn in the first instance, then the land
would go out of cultivation, then would come scarcity,
and then there would be a famine price. Under the free
system the people would be continually exposed to fluc-
tuations—one year starving, and the other rioting in
abundance; one year the manufacturers would be plunged
in the deepest distress, and the next the agricultural la-
bourers would be out of employment. A free trade in
corn would not be advantageous till there was a free trade
in everything else ; and though a good deal was now said
about free trade, there was in fact no such thing known.
Some persons said it would be desirable to hate our
population crowded into workshops. He did not think
that; he desired to see the present mixture of maninactu-
ring and agricultural pursuits, and he thought the Legis-
lature ought to maintain it. He could say that at present
the manufacturers were flourishing, which showed that
they were not starved by the Corn Laws. If they did
not get adequate wages, that was owing to the avarice of
their masters. The agricultural labourer now got good
wages, and had not been so well off for thirty years. He
had made these observations only to shoW that the Corn
Laws did not, as was said, starve the people.—(Hear.)
Mr. LEECH contended that Corn Laws could not be a
monopoly, for rents were now not higher than thy were
forty yearn ago ; and if tlfe Corn Laws were a monopoly,
rents would have been doubled.
Mr. AGLIONBY would support the motion, as it did
not go to put an end to the Corn Laws, but only to modify
them. Certainly the present laws had been intended to
Protect the agriculturists, and in that light they had failed
—(Question.)
The House then divided.
For Mr. Fryer's Motion..
Against it
Majority

._::,

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
On our readmission to the Gallery, it appeared that
Sir ANDREW AGNEW had moved for leave to bring
i n•a Bill, or Bills, to amend the laws relating to the ob-
servonce of the Lord's Day in Scotland.
Lord ALTHORP did not object to leave being given to
bring in the Bill, but advised the Hon. MAnber not to
press it, as it would be utterly impossible to get through
the subject this Session.—(Hear. )
Mr. HUME thought it a pity to waste the time of the
House by bringing in a Bill on this subject at this period
of the Session, nor did be see why they should legislate
on this subject expressly for the people of Scotland—why
should there not be one law for both countries.
Mr. A. JOHNSTONE said the Hon. Member for
Middlesex appeared to think that any measure brought in
for England might be applied to Scotland, but he would
inform the Hon. Member that the Bill which had already
been thrown out, did not go far enough for the people of
Scotland.--(0h, ob, and a laugh.) He knew the feelings
of the people of Scotland—and he hoped the Hon. Baronet
would take high ground.
Mr. R. WASON said it was impossible to consider the
subject satisfactorily this session, and he hoped the Noble
Lord's good nature would not induce him to permit the time
of the House to be wasted by the introduction of a measure
of this description.

Mr. ESTCOURT thought it would be very unjust to
pply such a rule to this Bill, unless the ssinc principles
were adopted with regard to every other measure proposed
to be introduced this ses,ion.

Mr. PRYME did not think it desirable that there
should be any variation between the laws for England and
Scotland in this particulir.
An HON. AIEMBER said the people of Scotland lived
under the laws in many respects different from th,se of
England. The least the House could do was to see what
the Bill was before they rejected it.
Mr. POTTER said that the Hon. Member opposite
(Mr. Johnstcne) hail said that the Bill formerly intionuced
by tl e Hon. Baronet did not go far enough hir the people
ofScotland, and they all knew what sort of a Bifl that
was.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Front this statement,
the House might judge what sort of a Bill the Hon. Ba-
ronet proposed to introduce now.—(Hear.)
Sir ANDREW AGNEW said he did not wish to in.
traduce a new law, but to amend existing la, s.
The House then divided, when there appealed_
Tor the motion 73
Against it
Majority l3
Leave was accordingly given to bi ing in the lii 1.
CORK GAOL—TITHES.
Mr. RONAYNE rose to call the attention of the House
to the harsh and cruel manner in which prisoners in con-
finement in the gaol of Cork for offences connected with
tithes, were treated. The punishment they endured was
greater than that inflicted upon convicted felons. Ile
complained to Judge Moore, who had tried them, awl, by
his Lordship's request, the slat riff accompanied him to the
gaol to examine into the facts. The sheriff confirmed his
testimony, and Judge Moore expressed his strong disappro-
bation at the manner in which they had been treated. He
laid the subject before the Government, and waitid day
after day on Sir William Gossett, who put him t It wiih
plausible pretences till he was at last tired, and to:4 him,
that as it appeared the Government in Ireland was, weak
as not to date to redress their subjects for tear of giving
ctfenee to the Conservative Committee of the gaol Cork,
lie would apply elsewhere.—(Hear.) No such conveni-
ence as a night chair was allowed to the prisoners, though

•
locked up so loug. He represented this to the sheriff, who
gave him permission to send them one from a neighuour-

ing hotel, which the sheriff ordered to be put in a separate
colt; but (would the House believe it?) the Conservative
Gaol Committee interfered, and ordered it to be put in the
smA cell along with the prisoners. He concludol by
moving for copies of all the memorials to the Iris:, Go.