The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.

Sir VALENTINE BLAKE put the following questions
(of which he had given notice) to the Right Hon. Secretary
of the Home Department :-
1. Was it his intention to introduce a clause or clauses into his
Bill for regulating the Medical Colleges and the Medical De-
grees of Universities, by which it will be enacted, that hence-
forth the College of Physicians in London will be enabled to
prevent any physician from practising in any part of England
unless he be possessed of the License of the College of Physi-
cians in London ?
2. If this power be given by the Bill to the College of Phy-
sicians, is it intended that medical graduates of Edinburgh and
of Dublin Universities, et present practising in England, shall
be admitted licentiates of the College in London without exa-
mination, on the payment of a small fee, say 51., the additional
stamp duty being altogether remitted ?
3. Was it his intention to modify the charter lately granted to
the College of Surgeons of London, so as to allow prescribing
surgeons who practice midwifery to be eligible for the fellow-
ship; and also to allow a surgeon apothecary to become imme-
diately eligible on abandoning the bu,iness of an apothecary ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said there might be an inconveni-
ence in going into details in answer to the Hon. Baronet's
questions. The object of the measure he should introduce
was not to impose new restrictions on medical prac-
titioners, but to relax the restrictions already existing.
He hoped this would be a satisfactory answer to the two first
questions. With _respect to the last question, a practitioner of
midwifery was not , as such, eligible as a member of the College
of Surgeons, and he had no intention of, in that respect, modi-
fying the charter of the, College.
In answer to a question from an Hon. Member, •
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he should bring in the mea-
sure immediately before Easter, or directly afterwards.
DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

Mr. COBDEN then rose to bring forward his motion for
a Select Committee to inquire into the effects of protective
duties on imports on the interest of the tenant fanners and
farm labourers of this country. He said—Sir, the motion I
have to make is one which I believe is not ordinarily refused;
it is one for a S'elect Committee to sit up stairs, to take evi-
dence of an important nature on a question that ex-
cites great controversy out of dsors, and which I
believe is likely to excite considerable discussion in this House.
It may be said that my motion might have been appropriately
placed in other hands. lam of that opinion too. I think it
might have been more appropriately brought forward by a gen-
tleman on the other side of the House, particularly by a gen-
tleman connected with the counties of Wiltshire or Dorsetshire.
Though I am not yet acquainnted with the grounds on which
I may besopposed, I think it right to state that I intend my
motion to be for the interests of the agricultural classes as
much as any Honourable Gentleman opposite could pretend
it to be, and that the principles which I advocate are
calculated to do justice to them as much as to
any other portion of the community. I wish to have it known
that I take my stand this night as the especial advocate of the
agriculturists; and in bringing forward this motion I submit,
in the first place, that it is not usual for this House to refuse the
appointment of Committees on important questions. We have
instances of Committees being appointed to take evidence as to
the importation of silk, the exportation of machinery, the
navigation laws, and on all questions of similar importance. It
must also be admitted that such Committees are also appointed
without the parties more immediately concerned having
in the first instance petitioned the House for their ap-
pointment, before the Committee were gianted. On
the appointment of the Committee relative to the
exportation of machinery the motion was granted. not
at the instance of manufacturers who had a monopoly of ma-
chinery, but by parties whose interests were more particularly
affected by the then existing laws. Ido not therefore antici-
pate that any just grounds can be stated why the Committee
should be refused because petitions have not been presented de-
manding it. I shall now state what my opinions shall be on
entering that Committee. I shall be prepared to bring impor-
tant evidence forward before that Committee sheeting the
effects of the protection, as it is called to the agriculturists by
the examination of farmers themselves. I will in fact
not bring fora and a single witness before that Com-
mittee who will not be a tenant farmer or a landed
proprietor.— ( Hear, hear.) The opinion which I shall
hold on entering the Committee is, that the protection, as it
is called, instead of being beneficial, is delusive and injurious
to the tenant-farmers, and that opinion I shall be prepared to
sustain by the evidence of tenant-farmers themselves. I wish
it to be understood that I do not admit what is called protec-
tion to agriculturists has been ever any protection at all to
them, but on the contrary, I hold that its only effect has been
to mislead them.—(Bear, hear.) I have recently read over
again the evidence taken before the first corn-law Committee
of 1815, and I leave it to any man whether it was not con-
tended at that time that sufficient protection could not be
given to the agriculturists unless they got 80s. a quarter for
wheat.—( Hear, hear.) 1 wish to remind the Hon. Member
for Wiltshire, whether it was net at that period thought that
wheat could not be grown in this country, unh as the farmers got
965. a quarter or 12s. a bushel for it, while now the Ministry
are only willing to give the farmers a rate of 565. a quarter.
It is denied that this House has ever promised to guaran-
tee prices for their produce to the farmers. Now, what was the
custom of the country from the passing of the corn-law in 1815?
Why, 1 will bring old men before the committeewho will state,
that farmers valued their farmer, from that time, by
a computation of wheat being at eighty shillings a quarter.
I can also prove that Agricultural Societies, that met in 1821,
came to resolutions declaring that they were deceived by the
Act of 1815, from which calculations were made at the rate
of wheat being at 80s., while, in fact, it was only at 435. I
can also prove that, in the Committee which was esta-
blished in 1b36, the witnesses stated that they had
been deceived in the price of their corn ; and I will
ask the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the
Government whether, at the present moment, rents were not
fixed rather with reference to certain Acts that were passed,
than any intrinsic worth of the farmers. I know that the pre-
sent is a subject which causes some little irritation ; but I will
ask whether farms under the Corn-law Bill are not valued at corn
being 801. a bushel. In consequence of the alteration that was
made since the last Act, tenant farmers have been valued on the
ground of corn being 565. a quarter. Now, I know an instance
where a. party occupying his own land, was rated at a certain
amount—viz., at the amount of the valuation of corn being 565.
a quarter, while, in fact, it was selling at 475., and upon his
asking why he had been so rated, he was told that the parties
did not know, but they supposed it was in consequence of what
the Prime Minister had stated was the price of corn.
What I want to go into Committee for is to convince the far-
mers, once for all, that that House has not the power to regu-
late he price of their commodities. The Right Hon. Gentle-
mau stated to me that he could not regulate the wages of the
labourer, or the profits of the manufacturers or traders; and
a he could not guarantee any fixed profits, how could the
House possibly fix the price of agricultural commodities?
Now the first point to which I should wish to make this Cora -
mittee instrumental will be in fixing in the minds of the farmers
the fact that this House exaggerates its power to raise and
enhance prices.--( Hear.) The prices of agricultural produce
have never been, up to that point, legislated for and guaranteed
by this House, and it is on that main point that I wish to have
a settled and sound opinion given to the country. The farmer's
interest is that of the whole community, and is not a partial
interest—(Loud cheer;)—and you cannot touch him more sen-
sitively than when you injure the
.manufacturers—his cus-
tomers.—(Cheers.) I do not deny that you may regulate
prices for awhile—for awhile you have regulated• them by
forcing an artificial scarcity ; but in so doing you have only
sown the seed by which you destroyed. your own power and
prosperity, for you carried on a war against nature.—
( Loud cheers.) You may produce by this means the
ruin of trade, the bankruptcy of capitalists—but is this con.-
istent with the interest of the farmer ? These are the fun-
damental principles which I wish to bring out, arid with this
primary view it is that I ask for a Committee at your
hands. —(Cheers.) Now with regard to other monstrous
fallacies with which the farmers have been beset and latterly
more so than ever, the Committee I ask for would elicit the
truth upon them, aed also upon other most important questions.
The farmer has been told that if there was a free trade in corn,
corn will be so cheap that he will not be able to carry on.
He is directed only to look at Dantzic, where corn
is selling at 15s. lid. per quarter, and on this
the Essex Protection Society put out their circu-
lars, stating that Dantzic wheat in England is but 15s.
11d. per quarter, and how would the British farmer contend
against this.—(A laugh.) Now I maintain that these state-
ments are not very creditable to the parties who propagate such
nonsense, nor to the understandings of the farmers who listen
to and believe there.—(Laughter.) The truth, I suppose,
is what all men desire to arrive at. Now the farmer will very
easily be disabused on this and other points, if you will grant
me the Committee I seek, for there we shall be governed
in our statements by the tests of . experience, and
not by the mere predictions of interested partisans.
We know what the price has been in the. Channel islands when
the trade is free. These islands send corn to this country, and
they receive foreign corn duty free.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I
know of no better test of what the price of corn in this
country would be in a state of free trade than the prices in the
island of Jersey furnish, taken for a number of years, com-
prising a cycle of high and low prices in- that country. We
know that the fluctuation of prices in that country embrace-
the fluctuations of the whole of Europe, and therefore I think
we could have no better test of what the effect of free trade
upon prices would be here. We have papers on the table
showing what the prices of corn were in Jersey in the ten
years, from 1832 to 1841, inclusive. The average price
was in those ten years 48s. 4d. What do you
think was the average price in your own markets,
in those years ? It was 565. Bd.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I
have taken some pains to ascertain the opinions of those who
best understand this subject, and I find that the greater de-
mand for labour in this country would raise the price of corn
here to three or four shillings above the price in Jersey with-
out the danger of throwing land out of 'cultivation..—(Oppo-
sition cheers, and Tory counter cheers.) What I would gentlemen
say that the difference between 51s. and 565. Bd. would throw
land out of cultivation, ruin the farmers. and pauperise the
labourers ?—( Cheers.) But in years of high prices, the
fumes sdo not receive the high prices for their corn. On the
contrary, they sell their corn at the lowest prices, and the
speculator sells his at the highest.—(Loud cheers.) A short
time ago I met a miller from near Winchester, who said to
me, " 1 think 1 can give you some practical information on this
subject," and he took out his book and told me the prices
which he paid away for the corn which he purchased before the
harvest and after the harvest in five years. ghat
he paid for the load of five quarters, in August,
1839, was 191. 10s. ; in November of that year it was 161. the
load. In August, 1840, the price was IE4. the load ; in Octo-
ber, 141. 15s. In 1841, August, 19/. the load; October, 151.
guineas the load; September, 12/. In
In
nn 11848423,, August,july,
1 17 7
guineas ; September, 121. 10s. I think
this may show that the farmers do not gain by the increase
of the price, but that they sell at the lowest price of.the market.
Now, Sir, there is another point upon which as much misre-
presentation exists as the one I have just stated, namely, the
price at which corn could be grown abroad. The price of
wheat at Dantzic during those ten years to which I have
referred was 405., and if 34,11 add to it the freight of
Bs., it will corroborate the statement I have made
with regard to the price at which wheat has been sold at Jersey.
—(Hear, hear.) Another point upon which misrepresentation
has gone abroad, relates to the different items of expenditure in
bringing wheat to Mis country. We have had cost for freight at
various periods, but we have not had full accounts of the
other items of expenditure.—( Hear, hear.) It would be im-
portant to elicit as much information as possible upon this
subject, and the best means of arriving at it would be to
examine practical men from the City before a Select Com-
mittee of the House, as to the cost of transit.—
( Hear, hear.) As far as I could obtain information from
the books of merchant., the cost of transit from Dantzic may
be put down at half-a-guinea, including, in this freight, land-
ing loading; iniurance, and other items of every kind. This is