The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-21 00:00:00

larger proportion of the agricultural population.---
(Hear, hear.) Exactly in the same proportion as the
number of persons employed in agriculture have dimin-
ished, the number of those employed in manufactures
have. increased. I find that, so early as 1570,
nearly three hundred years ago, some ac Bunt was
taken of the population of the country. I find it was
then pretty nearly apportioned in the different parts
of the country. The country was divided into two
separate portions, the agricultural portion being one,
and the manufacturing and commercial portion the
other; and it happened, singularly enough, that what
may be called the manufacturing portion took in
fourteen counties, occupying an area of the country
which was one-third of the whole of these counties.
Now, the agricultural portion included 29 counties,
being two-thirds of the area of the country. Now,
in 1570 the population was divided into the same
proportions. The commercial counties were one-
third, and the agricultural counties were two-thirds.
The number of the population at that time in the
area of one-third occupied by the manufacturing por-
tion was 1,239,000 ; in the area of two-thirds occupied
by tine agricultural portion the amount was 2,498,000,
being as nearly as possible one-third and two-thirds ;
but in 1801, the proportions were altered, and in the
manufacturing counties, which was one-third of the
country, the population amounted to 2,900,000, while
in the agricultural counties, occupying two-thirds of
the country, the amount of population was 4,400,000,
not quite equally divided, there being 47 per cent. of
the population in the one-third of the country occu-
pied by manufacturers, and 53 per cent. for the two-
thirds occupying the agricultural counties. This
was, very unfair as compared with the different areas,
but at each successive period the proportion was
more unfair. In 1811 the proportion devoted to com-
merce and manufactures was 48 per cent. In 1821
it was 49 per cent. In 1831 it was 52 per cent., being
more than one-half of the whole. In 1841 it was 54
per cent.—that is eight per cent. more than half of the
whole, while it was only 46 per cent. for the part de-
voted to agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) This is a
manifest benefit to the whole country.—(Hear,
hear.) We know that the population of the
country will increase. We know, from melancholy
statements which have been lately made public—of
which there has been no denial, no refutation—that
the agricultural counties are overburdened with popu-
lation.—(Hear, hear.) We have lamentable accounts
of cottages so crowded with people that they suffer
both in health and morals.—(Hear, hear.) What,
therefore, can be more advantageous for the agricul-
tural districts than that that portion of the country
devoted to manufactures, which occupies only one-
third, should be able to absorb the superfluous agri-
cultural population ?—(Hear.) That this is a great
advantage to the agriculturists themselves will appear
thus, that the poor-rates in the manufacturing coun-
ties are less in proportion than the poor-rates in the
agricultural oounties. I have not been able to get
the returns of the total poor's-rate for a later period
than 1841 ; but that, you will recollect, was the time
when the census was taken. From this, it appears
that the poor's-rate paid in the manufacturing coun-
ties, occupying only one-third of the area of the
whole country, but containing more than half of the
whole population, was only 42 per cent., while
the poor's-rate in the agricultural counties, occupying
two-thirds of the area of the country, but containing
only 46 per cent. of the population, was 58 per cent.
of the whole poor's-rate of the kingdom.—(Hear,
hear.) The result is, that the poor's-rate in the com-
mercial and manufacturing counties is only 4s. 10d.
per head, whereas in the agricultural counties
it amounts to 7s. 10d. per head.—(Hear, hear.)
Therefore I say that the manufacturers, and the ma-
nufacturing interest of the country, are deserving of
the support of the country, not only for the sake
of the good things which they bring us from abroad,
and which they have obtained in exchange for the
products of their industry which they have exported,
but for the actual good which they do to
the great bulk of the country, particularly
to the agricultural portion of the country—(Cheers)--
I by absorbing the increased population which must
otherwise become a burden upon the country at large,
more particularly upon the agricultural portions of it,
so as to become very injurious to the proprietors, and
likewise to the people themselves, who form a portion
of this increasing population.—(Hear, hear.)
There is also another good, on account of which,
I say, the manufacturing interest deserves the sup-
port of all classes of the people of this kingdom;
and that is the great skill, the great ingenuity, the
great activity, the great science, the great perse-
verance, and the great industry which they exhibit in
improvements which they are daily introducing into
their machinery, so that those necessaries of life
which pass through their mills are gradually be-
coming cheaper, and more within the reach of
persons of small means.—(Loud cheers.) This
appears in a still more remarkable manner
when we consider the increased value of agricultural
produce.—(Cheers.) I may be allowed here to say,
that I am the less unwilling to institute these sorts of
comparisons, because I am myself wholly and solely
connected with the agricultural interest—(lmmense
cheering)—and I have no connexion, except by pos-
sessing the acquaintance, and, I believe,.the good-will
of many gentlemen connected with the manufacturing.
districts—except, I say, that I possess their acquaint-
ance, and, I believe good-will, I have no connexion
whatever with the manufacturing part of the coun-
try.—(Renewed cheering.) Many gentlemen who
are present 'here to-night, I will not say many ladies,
because to these things ladies are not, perhaps, much
in the habit of paying attention—(A laugh)—but
many gentlemen present know that annually returns
are made to Parliament of the value of the exports of
the kingdom. In these returns there are two
columns, one representing the official value of
the goods exported and the other representing
the real, or the declared value. Now, about 150
years ago, in the year 1694, the practice first com-
menced of entering in the books at the Custom-house
the value of the exports of the country, and a certain
sum of money was put down opposite each as its va-
lue per lb. or per cwt. at that period. That has never
varied up to the present period, but the real value of
these articles has varied very much. Of course, it is very
desirable to know the real value of the exports also ;
and for many years past, the practice has been to give
in these returns the declared value as well as the
official value. The declared value is the real value
at the present time; the official value, of course, gives
you no idea of what the real value of any commodity
is at the present moment, but it shows what
would hare been its value in the year 1694.
Now, it appears from these returns, and by com-
paring the declared with the official values, the value
,f manufactured articles has since the year 1694 de-
Teased 60 per cent., whilst on the other hand agri-
cultural produce has increased in value 143 per cent.;
io that any given amount of agricultural produce
which in the year 1694 was worth 1001. is now worth
2431., while any given amount of manufactured goods
which in 1694 was worth 1001., is now not worth
more than 401.—(11ear, hear.) Now, after this I
think that the agriculturists ought at least not to
complain.—(Loud cheers.) The result of all this is,
that at the present moment agricultural produce of
the value of 1001. will purchase as much manufac-
turing produce as 600/. worth would in 1694. Now,
I really think that ought to make the agriculturists
rather wish that manufactures should thrive and
flourish—(Cheers)—and if it does not make them do
so, lam sure I do not know what will.—(Loud cheers.)
The benefit is all on their side certainly.—(Renewed
cheering.) For these reasons lam anxious, and I
think that the country ought to be anxious also, that
manufactures should flourish, and it was in order to
profess that anxiety and to state the reasons why I
felt it, that I accepted the offer which was made to
me to address you from this place.—(Loud cheers.)
If I am not wearying you—(Cheers and cries of
"Go on")—I would wish to state to you two other
reasons why I came here this evening.— (Loud cheers.)
The first is that I felt great anxiety to express here,
in the strongest possible manner, my adhesion to
what are noiv called the principles of free trade.—
(Immense cheering.) I believe that on the carrying
out of those principles the happiness and welfare of
the country depend.—(Cheers.) And I believe that
the success of those principles depends mainly
on the exertions which you and other
persons are making and have made, on this
and on former similar occasions, at the meetings
which have been held in this theatre and elsewhere
in support of free-trade principles—(Loud cheers)—
for it should never be forgotten that we have resolute
and interested opponents. I believe that, as has been
said by others, the principles of free trade are the
principles of common sense—(Cheers and laughter)
—and I also helieve that they are the principles
of benevolence, of charity, and sound policy.
—(Loud cheers.) I believe that they are the
soundest principles on which the policy of
any country can be conducted, and that they are
the principles on which eventually the whole coun-
try will, be governed.—(Loud cheers.) I have
heard it imputed to those who espouse these prin-
ciples, that they are hostile to the maintenance of the
credit of this country, and that they will violate the
national faith, because, it is said that if you carry out
the principles of free trade, you destroy the
national credit by taking away the means of
collecting the revenue, from which we are to pay
the interest of the national debt. I dispute that
proposition altogether. I admit that if we were
in precisely the state that we could wish, we might
very well desire to have no taxes at all—(Cheers and
laughter)—and, undoubtedly,
it would be very ad-
vantageous to commerce that it should be debarrassed
from all Custom-house duties.—(Cheers.) But that
is not necesslry to free trade. Ali that is neces-
sary for free trade is, that no tax should be imposed
except for purposes of revenue, above all that no tax
should be imposed for protection—(Loud cheers)—
for the purpose in fact of protecting one interest
against another. That is really contrary to the prin-
ciples of free trade.—(Cheers.) But it is said by

some, all those principles are good, true, and right in
-
the abstract—(A laugh)—but in the concrete—
(Laughter)—at all events, they ought not to be ap-
plied to articles of food. The article of food, it is said,
is so important that to it the principles of free trade
ought not to be applied. Now, it strikes me that if
the principle is right and good, the more important
the article the more necessary is it, then, in respect
to that article the principle should be enforced.—
(Cheers.) If the principle is not good, why enforce
it at all ?—(Cheers.) If it is good, why exempt from
its operation the most important article ?—(Cheers.)
It is said that agriculture wants protection, and that
if it has it not it will be ruined. Whether or not it
has been ruined under protection it may, perhaps, be
worth while to inquire.—(Cheers.) Now let us see
what is said on the subject by those who advocate
protection. We are told that for hundreds of years
past there have been always corn-laws. I admit that
when I look into the statute-book I find that as far
back as 600 years since I find laws regulating the
trade in corn. But I find this peculiarity about the
laws which were passed at that period. The corn-laws
which were passed in those ancient times had but
one object in view, namely, to secure a sufficient
supply of food for the people—(Hear and cheers)
—and to provide for the introduction of a plentiful
supply of food from abroad when there was a scarcity
of it at home.—(Cheers.) During the latter portion
of that period, however, legislation has taken a dif-
ferent turn. Shortly after the restoration of Charles
the Second, several clauses were passed for the pro-
tection of the landed interest—not for the purpose of
securing a proper supply of food for the people of this
country, but for the purpose of protecting the landed
interest ; and they have gone on legislating in the
same way: and for the same purpose, with one ex-
ception, ever since. The first Act giving protection
to the landed interest was passed in the 12th of
Charles the Second, and since that period there have
been 100 or 120 different Acts of Parliament
passed, regulating the importation and the exporta-
tion of corn. Their number alone is a pretty good
proof that none of the doctors—(Hear, hear)—have
been able to hit upon the right remedy.—(Cheers,
and laughter.) Many of them have tried hard to do
so, however; for at the rate they have been going on
we have had, every two years and a half, or every three
years, a Bill regulating the importation and the ex-
portation of corn.—(Cheers and laughter. Divers
reasons have at different times been given for these
enactments. At an early stage of the business there
was no concealment whatever about the matter. The
object was clearly avowed, In the 15th of
King Charles IL, three years after the first Act was
passed, an' Act of Parliament was passed, the preamble
of which stated that, for the encouragement of tillage,
and seeing that there were lands which could not be
so well employed as in the feeding of cattle, and as
vast numbers of cattle had been imported from fo-
reign countries, already fatted—the Act does not sax
that the people did not eat them—(A laugh)—and
that in consequence such lands had much fallen, and
were likely to fall, in their rent and value—(Cheers)—
be it enacted, that certain penalties should be imposed
upon the importation of cattle.—(Cheers.) Here
they fairly avowed that the importation of fat cattle
had already caused rents to fall, and that the landed
proprietors required the protection of the Legislature
to prevent their importation.—(Cheers.) They con-
fessed themselves that this principle could not be car-
ried out effectually ; for, three years after, in the
year 1666, they passed an Act, reciting the former
Act,, and setting forth that as the rents still con-
tinued to fall, the importation of cattle should be re-
garded as a public and common nuisance—(Cheers)
and should be so adjudged.—(Loud cheers.)
The importation of cattle, therefore, was to be ad-
judged a nuisance, because rents had fallen, and the
Parliament so voted it. This is the earliest time at
which we find Acts passed for the protection of the
landed interest, and from that time to this the Legis-
lature has been employed almost every other
year in passing Bills for the same purpose.
A Bill was introduced in 1689 which pre-
sented a new feature in the history of
protection. By that Act a bounty was given upon
the exportation of corn. That must certainly have
been very advantageous to the growers of corn, but to
the public at large it was a general injury. Money
was in fact raised by taxes upon the people of the
country to; buy up the corn to send abroad, so as to
raise the price at home. I believe that nothing ever
prospered under protection. It was remarkable
that during the course of seventy or eighty years
they were obliged to suspend the operation of the
law seventeen or eighteen times.—(Cheers.) In the
year 1774 they passed an Act—which is the exception
to which I have before alluded—an Act diminishing
the protection to corn. That Act, in fact, did away
with protection altogether, for it was enacted that
after wheat should have attained a price of 48s. a
quarter it should be admitted at a duty of 6d. That,
in fact, continued to be the state of the law up to the
year 1815, for although two Acts were passed, modi-
fying the provisions of the law of 1774, yet the price
never fell so as to bring those Acts into operation ;
so that from 1774 to 1815, we may fairly say that in
(Cheers.)
I country we had a free trade in corn.-heers.)
I believe that there is no period in English history in
which agriculture flourished more than it did during
that period. Towards the latter part of that period,
notwithstanding all the heavy burdens which we had
to bear to sustain the war—notwithstanding the great
taxation imposed upon us, agriculture was in a flour-
ishing condition. In 1815 an extreme protec-
tion was granted to the landed proprietors. That
law was repealed in 1828, and another was passed
giving a protection not quite so great, but still very
great, to the landed interest; that law, we all know,
was repealed two years ago, and a protection some-
what less, but still very great, was again granted to
theth. Now, under all. this protection, I ask, has
agriculture flourished ?—(Cheers.) Why, during
the whole of that period we have heard of no-
thing but complaints of agricultural distress, of
distressed farmers, and of distressed landowners, and
we have had Parliamentary Committees frequently
sitting to consider the subject of agricultural dis-
tress. So that if free trade will not be beneficial to
agriculture, at all events it appears that no system of
protection for the last 150 years has answered
its purpose.—(Loud cheers.) It is my anxious
wish to see every protection removed—(Loud cheers)
—and that is the reason why I wish to see a total aboli-
tion of the corn-laws.—(Loud cheers.) I have been
told of the ill effects which will be produced by such
is measure; and it will, perhaps, be well to see what
our adversaries say ofi the subject. There are few
persons, I presume, in this assembly who are not
aware that my Hon. Friend on my right,
Mr. Cobden—(Loud cheers)—made a speech the
other evening in the House of Commons, not exactly
on the corn-laws, but on a subject connected with
them. That,speech is admitted, even by his opponent,
to have been a speech of consummate ability.—(Loud
cheers.) Now let us take the speech made in answer
to it by Mr. Gladstone, a Minister of the Crown, the
President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Gladstone is
a gentleman of great talent and ability, and I, there-
fore looked with the greatest anxiety to see what
could be said in answer. I found but little, except to
this effect :—" You, Mr. Cobden, think so and so—
other gentlemen think so and so ;' the matter is of
great importance—it is creasing great agitation in
the public mind—there is the greatest excitement
existing; and, therefore,"—l concluded that he would
say, therefore we must inquire into the matter—
(Cheers)—which was all that Mr. Cobden asked; but
no!--" the matter is one creating intense anxiety—there
are great doubts about the subject—it is impossible
to say who is right or who is wrong, and therefore
we had better hush the matter up, and say nothing
more about it."—(Cheers and laughter.) That is the
substance of the greater part of his speech.—(Cheers
and laughter.) There is one part of it to which I
wish to draw your attention. I will read the pas-
sage to you :—" The lion. Gentleman had argued the
question in one way; now there were many
Hon. Gentlemen who would argue it in the other.

He had himself heard the Hon. lilember for Wiltshire
argue, with great ingenuity and truth, that one of
the immediate results of any change would be a sud-
den depreciation of the value of agricultural property."
Now I know the Member for Wiltshire, and I know
_ _

his feelings on the subject. His sentiments do not
astonish me, for I remember that, before the Com-
mittee in 1814, on the Report of which the corn-law
was passed, the object of which was to keep up the
price of corn to 825., that gentleman gave it as his
opinion, in evidence, that corn could not be grown in
this country at a profit if the price was lower than
965. He would therefore, I presume, have had that
fixed as the price by Act of Parliament—a pretty
stout charge I think.—(Cheers and laughter.) The
Hon. Member for Wiltshire reminded them that land-

lords must live.—(Laughter.) Well, I for one, have
no objection to that— (Renewed laughter)—but when
I read that I was reminded of a story which I had
read of Cardinal Fleury. The Cardinal was one day
walking in his grounds, when he met a man who
presented a pistol at his head, and demanded his
purse. The Cardinal remonstrated with him on his
conduct. " I must live," - said the man. The
Cardinal, with great coolness, declared to the
fellow that he did not see the necessity for that
at all.—(A laugh.) Now I will not apply that
saying of the Cardinal to the landlords.—(A laugh.)
but the Hon. Member for Wiltshire goes on to say--
"The landlords must live, and, if they cannot get a
fair rent for their land, they must make an effort to j
effect that object by taking it out of the pockets of
the farmers."—(A laugh.) Now, that seems to me
very much like putting their hands in other men's
pockets—(Loud cheers and laughter)--and although
in that statement of the Honourable Gentleman
there may be much ingenuity and truth, there
is not much honesty, I think—(Hear and cheers).
—and, with respect to the ingenuity, I dare say that,
manywit hincaoucled be
certain area omfotshtisinpgleacnieo,uosrinofthtahtiswtaoym._-n,
(Great laughter.) Well the Bight Hon. Gentl9p,n...