The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

,44.

great and solid advantages . from them to
counter-balance the numerous evils which they
entailed. This was just the time for the
House to enter into the consideration of this all-impor-
tant question. Sonic time ago great sympathy had been
manifested for the condition of the working classes; and
Hon. Members affected the greatest horror at the means
which many of them were obliged to resort to for the
means of obtaining a livelihood. Now, he invited
those Hon. Members to investigate into the causes of
this distress. Hon. Members, on the occasion referred
to, complained that the people were obliged to work too
long and too hard—that they were without the means of
educating their children—that they were compelled to
neglect the domestic duties of life, and that they had
sunk lower in the scale of civilisation than the inhabi
tants of other countries. He (Mr. Villiers) now asked
them to enter into the inquiry whether this excessive
competition had not been induced by the want of food?
—(Hear, hear.) How earnestly and how heartily the
landowners wished for a plentiful harvest. Well, in
that wish the whole community concurred with them;
but he believed that the wish on the part of the agricultu-
rists was not unaccompanied with other associations—
such, for instance, as that in a cheap year there would be
plenty of work—that the necessities of the labouring
classes would not be so pressing, whilst in bad years
there were associations of an opposite character. An
inquiry into the physical condition of the people had
been proposed. Ile admitted that the destitution was
great and extensive, but thought it could be in a great
measure traced to the corn-laws. Suppose London were
barricaded with a sliding scale, and that no more corn
would be allowed for the consumption of the citizens but
that which was grown within its precincts—that Gros-
venor-square and all the other squares were turned into
cultivation—as a consequence of this state of things the
condition of the poor would be daily growing worse—
competition for employment would be increasing, and
wages decreasing. Now, in such a condition, would
it not be accounted the greatest hypocrisy if
the proprietors of these squares—the advocates
of protection and exclusion—complained of the
destitute state of the poor, and yet refused to re-
move the barricade of the scliding-scale, the main
cause of that distress ?—(Hear. hear.) The question of
the repeal of the corn-laws did not merely affect the
mill owners, or the manufacturers, but the whole com-
munity. He sail before that they had had all the ad-
vantages that experience could give them. It was so ;
they bad within the last ten years four years of
scarcity and four of plenty. Fran 1832 to 1836 corn
was abundant. Front 1833 to 1842 corn was scarce and
dear. During the four years of plenty the average cost
of wheat wa; 46e. a quarter; during the four years of
scarcity the average price was 665. a quarter. It ap-
peared from the calculations of Mr. M•Cullech that
during the cheap years the people consumed more and
paid less by one-tenth than during the dear years;
It was found that. during the cl.eap years, ti.e people
consumed seventeen millions of quarters, and.
during the dear years, fourt' en millions. In the
cheap years, the people paid 164,000,000 i 10,
17,000,000 of quarters ; in the dear years, 194,000 000/
for 14;000,000 of quarters. Mr. M'Culloch calculated
the agricultural produce of this country at 194,000,000/.
a year. Thus, it should be recollected that great sacri-
fices were made in sending the bullion out of the
country to purchase foreign corn, a practice which had
seriously endangered public credit, disarranged the
monetary affairs of this country, and the ultitnate effect
of these embarrassments was increase of poor-rates,
increase of taxes, increase of crime, and increase of
destitution. In 1840, the Queen, in her speech from the
Throne,deplored the miseries of the people and the distress
so great and prevalent in 1841 ; the Minister of the day
came down to that House declaring that he saw no other
remedy for the alleviation of this distress than the re-
mission of the taxes upon food, and on the prime neces-
saries of life. For this declaration the Whigs were
turned out of office by those who had an interest in mo-
nopoly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, through his
clergy, solicited alms for the relief of this distress, and
finally Sir Robert Peel came down to the House with his
Biil for the amendment of the corn-laws and of the tariff,
and declared that the taxes upon the necessaries of life
had reached the maximum, and that if they would main-
tain public credit they must reduce the price of food.
The harvest of 1842 proved to be good. The supply from
abroad was abundant, and the people had enough of
bread. Under the existing system pauperism must in-
crease. In the year 1837 the amount expended for the
relief of the poor was four millions. In 1843 the amount
was 5,200,000 L The number of paupers in the country
when the distress commenced was one million. At the
commencementof the present year the number amounted
to 1,500,000. What was the amount of able-bodied
paupers who were unable to find employment in conse-
quence of the distress arising from had hervests ? Ira
1842 the number was 407.570, while in 1836 the number
was only 300,000. In the large towns during the years of
dear prices the increase in the amount of poor-rates was
very great. In four years the increase was 134 per cent.
in Manchester, 52 per cent. in Bolton, 30 per cent. in
Oldham, and 159 per cent. in Sheffield. Hon. Gentlemen
might attribute this distress to over-speculation or over-
production, but, unfortunately, that distress was uni-
versal. The increase in the amount of paueerism was
hardly less in the agricultural districts than it was in the
manufacturing. He held in his hand returns of the in-
crease of the pauperism in the agricultural districts, and
it would be found that in fifteen of the chief agricultural
counties the increase of pauperism had been 21 per cent.
Such a state of things must necessarily affect the revenue.
It would appear, from the Parliamentary returns made
in 1842, that one of the Excise taxes, which was ex
petted to yield 78,4001., only yielded 58,0001. In Oc-
tober, 1842, the revenue obtained from the Excise wits
733,400/. less than in 1841. There was no part of this
subject which deserved more of the attention of that
House than' the effect which these taxes on food had
upon crime. In 1836 the committals had fallen to 20,000,
having been 22,000 in 1834. What had been the increase
in those years .which had been under the influence of dear
prices ? In 1836 the committals were 20,000, while in
1842 they had risen to 31,000. Actually an increase of
11.000 in the dear years over the cheap ones. Then,
with respect to emigration. The average amount of
emigration during the cheap years was 70,000, but in
1841 it was 116,000, and in 1842 it had reached 128,000.
lie said there was no instance in which it could be shown
that the working classes were not well if during the
continuance of cheap prices of food. He %%mild refer
the House to the opinion of the late Lord Liverpool,
expressed in the year 1822. when the agricultural bode
complaieed to Parliaineet of the existence of great
distress amongst them. Lord Liverpool on that occasion.
in the House of Lords, said that lowness of price was
sure to benefit the working classes. The existing low
prices, he said, had produced great benefit in the large
towns, by causing a fall in the poor-rates. That opini
was expressed in the year 1822, at a time when it was
said that unparalleled distress existed in the agricultural
districts. He (Mr. Villiers) would ask then the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough how he could hope to
benefit the working classes by increasing the price of
food? He (Mr.Villiers)would refer the House to a report
which had been made by a Committee of that House,
appointed to inquire into the state of the agricultural
districts. It was a report which the Right Honourable
Baronet., the Secretary for the Home Department, had
himself drawn up. In that report it was stated that the
evidence which had been adduced before the Committee
established beyond doubt the fact that great improve-
ment had taken place in the condition of the agricul-
tural labourer. This was in the year of low prices.
He (Mr. Villiers) was ready to take the authorities
which had been so often quoted by Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite in the discussionsem the Factory Bill. He was
ready to take those authorities to show how beneficial
low prices were to the health and morals of the working
population. The Noble Lord (Ashley) in his speeches
on the Factory Bill had frequently referred to the
writings of Dr. Hawkins, and Monsieur Bellamie, and he
(Mr. Villiers) was ready to quote from those authorities
to show how detrimental scarcity and dearness were to
the physical and moral condition of the people. Both
these authorities declared it to be their opinion, that
wherever scarcity of food existed, there also would be a
prevalence of typhus fever. In fact, this was the opinion
of almost every person who had written on the subject,
who was capable of judging. In the Manchester In-
firmary, during the dear years, 196 more inmates died
than in the cheap years. From returns which he had
obtained from sick clubs, it appeared that 25 per cent.
more died during dear years than cheap ones.—(The
Hon. Gentleman then read from pamphlets, which had
been published by Dr. Allison, of Edinburgh, and Dr.
Fitzgerald, of Clonmel, to show the pernicious
effects of scarcity and dearness of price. In
the opinion of these writers, years of scarcity
were always accompanied by a corresponding amount
of typhus fever. He had written to Dr. Hun-
ter, of Bloomsbury, for his opinion on the subject,
and he stated that he had had an extensive practice for
nearly twenty years, and had seen the disease of typhus
fever in all its degrees of malignity. There were nume-
rous predisposing causes, su.,h as want of cleanliness
and pure air, but nothing could equal that great predis-
posing agent—a scarcity of nutritious food. This alone
carried off tens of thousands in a year. le henever food
was scarce there typhus fever prevailed. Dr. Hunter
went on to say that he had known a family. of nine per-
sons who resided in a pure country district, and these
persons were all attacked with typhus fever, which
arose entirely from a want of proper nutritious food.
This was the opinion of Dr. Hunter. It might be asked,
what had that to do with the question, as it WBS not the
object of the corn-law to producer this scarcity. He
wanted,, then, to knew what w as the object of the corn-
law.—(llear, hear.) If it was tot intended to
produce scarcity, he wished to know fishy the
opposite intention had never been avowed ? It
was precisely at the morneet when the people were
well fed by the abundant hellle supply, that the agricul-
turists always beset that Heusi:with their complaints.
How was it that in all their inquiries the question was,
how can we raise the price ? They were frequently
found attempting to diminish the quantity by lessening
the breadth of land sown ; and in 1836, when corn was
cheap, the people well fed and contented, the rates di-
minishing, and employment abundaet, the agriculturists
were complaining, and asking how they were to remedy
this state of thing-.—(Hear, hear.) lie said then
that the tendency of the corn-laws was to produce
scarcity. and scarcity was the caure, as he had shown, of
want, disease, death, and crime.—(Hear, hear.) How
was it that the most distinguished of the persons who
opposed the law when it was passed, charged it on the
advocates of the law that they wanted to produce scar-
city ? How was it that Lord Grenville, whose language
he had used in his resolutions, said that such was the
purpose of the law, and that he therefore opposed it ?
It was denounced on the same grounds by others. The
respected father of the present Prime Minister denounced
the law as oppressive on the people, and declared his be-
lief that it was only enacted its order to keep up the
prices that prevailed during the war—that it was, in fuct,
a law far perpetuating what was in itself a great misfor-
tune. He foretold that the agriculturists would even-
tually suffer the most from it, and he verily believed that
the late Sir Robert Peel's prediction had been amply ful-

'Mr
filed. What were the riots ?Land at the time it
passed. did the working people believe then that the
law was passed for their benefit ? Why did notete
Government meet them with arguments instead of wil;
lery ?—(Hear.) Instead of doing so, they hire de!.
upon them with cannon. Was the state of
better now ? Only two years ago, °Pinif°o;
the Hon. Member
Somersetshire objected to the Right Hon. Gentleman..
tariff, which was brought is in the midst of great
tress, and with the intention of relieving it. That l'i°
n.
Member objected to the tariff, on the ground that
it
would diminish the price of food from the increased 5;11)*
ply it would admit from the United States and elsoef
where. He had read all the speeches at the meetinSe
the protection societies that had been lately held, an fl
could not discover that they had any other object tlUl
that of increasing the price of food. Indeed, at a raeetivil
held in the county of Surrey, one gentleman, of gr,e,aths
courage than the rest, stated distinctly what am for
others meant.' He said they were assembled tbereso
the purpose of advancing their own interest ; it e
their interest to make food dear and scarce, and Lth y
.ect
were met there for that purpose. What other obi
could these-laws have, when they were told of settleraei to
li
and mortgages, and capital that had been invested to
land, as reasons for preserving them, except for the P
pose of obtaining a price for the produce that 511051,
enable the landlord to meet these obligations ? obisvide,
what he wanted to prove to the House and to
country. Yet, with all this protection, the state oft,.
culture was but a low one ; in what condition was it llths.
thirty years of protection ? They bad it on the.eall, tee
rite. of more than one Member of that House, titese
state of agriculture was shamefully low. Then ler
were the two Right Hon. Gentlemen, the head °` e.
Majesty's Government, and the Noble Lord the Seetr„
tare. of the Colonies, they had both read a sort of leetnod.
on agriculture to the persons in their neighbourb rib
The Right Hon. Baronet said at the dinner at Tatowle,%o .
that they had met not for the protection, but the Prnrrar,
tints of agriculture—that was the distinction—( 1;o
hear, and laugh)—and that he regretted the pr_s_ca
of the country was not that of granting leases ; hell 00
at
.the same time that if any tenant of his should ea fors
him to grant one, he should hesitate a long time bee! to
he refused his request.—(Laughter.) He also allud log
another source of mischief to the farmer, that ari!est
from the extensive preservation of game, and stated,•L'eci
he had no behatiou in saying, if any tenant comnlinilis•
on this ground, he would give directions for the dests
tion of hares and rabbits to the extent that should fblie';
vent his experiencing. any 1, tss. All this was very laud.' it
he reed it for the purpose of showing the adatissio
contained ; but, he would ask, had this example, ,b,e,t,'S
followed in any ono instance throughout Staffordsn"-st
He ha l very great doubts or it. At the same dinnerro,
which this was stated by the Right Hon. Baronet. 2tse
fessor Buckland was present, and he declared that me
agriculture of that district was very bad; that be es
seen more histlee in a single field there than were t,ooo
found in all Lincolnshire, and advised them to run d'ett
and have a look at the model farm of Earl Ducie,
Bristol. At another dinner the Noble Lord (Std
said that the farmers were only beginning' to —.sea
themselves, and mentioned the advantages to be deritoo
from tile draining, but said he should probable' hneott
that this was an expensive operation, and that an to
could not undertake it. To this the meeting was We,.
have vociferously responded with "Hear, lie3r:sgo
(Laughter.) He alluded to long lea :es, and the 10°-ing
was received with marked applause, the meeting tort
in hopes to get something more out of the Noble ipel
oa the subject of leases. But the Nobleaeeb)
said there were many other topics—(A
—on a hieh he had to address them.— (Lting"-ssr
At these meeting's there always seemed to be some
pleas
tical man present who generally commented on Oo
speeches from Noble Lords and Hon. Gentlemen' 05
this occasion a practical agriculturist named Neilson
sod
present, and he spoke stronely in favour of leases,r;iii
against the conditions to which tenants were geene the
bound with respect to cultivating the estates. ter 11.
same subject they had also the authority of qheso
Varney, and the Hon. Member for Bridgewater• to
speakers at agricultural dinners seemed all to ag!,7o-
one particular, namely, that there were certain c'tilte,
stances which utterly precluded improvement• di of
Hon. Member then read an extract from a sPeefi-eres;
Colonel Powell, stating that one thing clone was sus
sary for agriculture, namely, fresh rents, corn rent•` the
long leases. He also read an extract froln chef
speech of Sir Robert Pigott, President of the W°lleesst
shire Agricultural Societe-, to the effect that if:the teeots
had a fixed tenure in land it would be an adv: ntage of
to tenant and landlord. There were no other rues ge
accounting for the prosperity of the Scotch farruer;rostt
would not weary the House with any further C.
It would not be disputed, that agriculture was eaPaeder
e
great improvement, and that the circumstances ie.
which land was now held wss not favourable to its rot
provement. He had particularly referred to this Ile of
the subject, because he had anticipated that the slsi;:so,
organic chemistry, and the lectures now being lie
were likely to supply the deficiency of past tisces.rateo
had pointed to those necessities simply for the Pi the
of showing that great sacrifices were required 0131010
part of the landlords, in order to el Ile
the tenant to effect the necessary improvements' 50
feared that those sacrifices were not likely to be or
If the repeal of these laws took place, instead 0' tee
peering at the hustings as the serf ef the landlord, aro
tenant wnuld appear there to exercise his indern(ed
judgment in the choice of a representat: VV. He bell the
the custom of granting I,ases had diminished sillelessl
passing of the Reform Bill, and there was not the "se
likelihood o` the custom increasing. Such wss the fl
elf
petition for land that the lardy rd was cemparall'ioo
safe. He was 'ure of obtaining the highed li.°„‘l
price for his land, and his rent was safe, he-cause be 111001.
priority of claim over other creditors. Further, tl'estl
lords of this country were, generally speaking on]) t,„ ea",
fur life, and they had but little motiv, therefore tee
capitel in the imi:revensent of their land. tle iweSce;
that landlords would never make tile neceessey san''lsoo
until they saw that their interest coesi-ted in tlPiroassl
raising the greatest amount of pro:lace a' the 0-001
price. If protection laws were rerea:ed, they 0'
have the landlords cernp.tirg; ;or teirtete thew
tenants coaTeting for lan ; th, y ou'd see their
looking for men of skill and eepiod eisq
land. lie was hound to ad :nit that the tarnser's ..seett
parts of the country were no le-.s rehtetar' tv'esoslf
leases than lanalerds were to g: alit them, but it
because there was such nneert ;into in the PL 03'
system.—(Hear, hear.) He ventured to 'll,,;ootri
there nag no intellgent farmer in the or e.
who would not sooner take free trade, °cite ern'
nied by a lease, than continue a tenant at will `v,geori
mites of protection which were never realised. 4,/ hots
They were now, therefore, in this position• rf..,,P for
started with a promise to depend on this country the!,
supply of food, and they were bound to admit,',
had not succeeded. He wanted to know tileVieb ";
ground there was for mistrusting the systelliZseadesPis
advocated—the system of having the surpl./.," 74Ourss'
upon competition ? Why the Right 1-1", se;
Gentleman at the head of the GovernMen"„e ins
times went out of his way to 111-eiple,:d
entirely they might rely upon that It bas
every case except that of the issue of r13°111,,;01 0114
been said, indeed, that the effect of the sYsntrf rs
he proposed would be to drain the '°l6l,eyei',o
all its bullion, but the experience of the last jeirtell'ts
showed that the exports of manufactures to e°.‘peets e
corn-growing countries had increased, whilst %void ft.
other countries had diminished. Ile could not vieleliot
ferring to the objection that his measure was t° jrd
He wanted to know who it was that said Olt stico,sa
the majority in that House say that they W°ll have
the law as it at present stood ? Would he then a add
any chance of conciliating them by prop ;sing eote're
moderate fixed duty?—(Hear, hear.) W°n` Vit'et
same objections be made to both proposi!lstbet west
were many gentlemen in that House who salci
sole i
s'
tee
they objected to was a regular trade in corn
were the case there could be no hope zed ddit
them to agree to a moderate "-- toof
Whenever they could bring themselves opp fru ee
that they were not justified in restricting the for veylit
food, they might be expected to be as anxi°l3oell„""se
trade in corn as any other class of society' dof 'rice;
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Boar, ed to ;
had observed, the other day, that if they wis`leseetils'ilo
any change in commerce they should do it
se'2 to 4.
and he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleint con, tithe
evils arising from uncertainty. The Right that tbat„ so
tleman had triumphantly referred to the fundh fee"
4iiirets
consequence of repealing the duty en vvo°,'ed
improved price in the market ; yet all the eero any
which were used against free trade It` ;d
been urged against free trade in Is. l!ebeelle
other measures exhibited a similar re'?' boa 01
not know any instance in which more canitati in tbno,o
invested, On the faith of an existing law. ttla any )1t s 0
the beer duties. No consideration whatever any re%so
for those vested interests. Nor did be seerifices
.tess
why all should not be prepared to make safija eotnstll
the great public welfare required it. Ile „ode° we'
that the change in that case had been a
arsons
evil, although, perhaps, at first some Pe:oats:or
suffered from it. Again, in respect to the al o°les
of machinery. When it was proposed tothrocsye tow tee
for preventing that exportation, man). of re„eal s,o°.
engaged in manufactures opposed the if mono,
in ;lied
ground that they had invested their earn ,f mono, first
factures'in the faith of the law, and that,, Aetna
had
theirwere emxapnouttfeaodt,urthese.y would lose the foreign bee
Mr. BORTHWICK—But that ine,anitriaeegb.)
eighteen years in progress.—(Hear, an" Ld I;een
_„
Mr. VILLIERS—But the corn-larr "1' lie ove',o Or
cmyoeanactriesi
ine rdpyrv:o grei.s.—(H ear, hear.)
it, but he did not et b feeeozeas.)
slid there
tthhet ehlriaeo‘kvh artohdrabtPePeirntrahgi permitting
al ITtgdhcteho n°et.sr 11:1. 11'1
exchangethoughtiNyhe nthe th
abolition
btr
opproducts
ooteverythingsftmh
oewsthtuihrenehppi
turnpike
beneficial.—(mtrtesntusboveisri
looarifr:,l4:oeelirictioi;
ts uP°ll eon'
sideration, it was alleged that a great na t
dared
fea
rctlehdiennAv
eeccstteses dsoaftrhpyeaiLl
ripropertythe public
ißn ntth
11. ,tdsheveat
nrouothasags:ei
:tw ad;
eoi
esojs;
made. There was another change
the °ld P°) ld
the attention of the House. That wasand
other et..
ff
----(Hear, hear, from Mr. Ferrand..,_ believed Ova
thought that was a case in point. ne
peeph ;uri
n.e)dt the
telierci tec eeri
tP et*v be e.etsol4::
tphoeoyr-dl poor-law
not
ts
think prejudicialso._
(silo the
lions rested upon it—their habits m
~o againest
501.1
formed by it. But the change was a "
eel son3wit of °)
feelings—(Hear, hear)—a sudden
athe feeli"gs
gent change, utterly disregarding_ . .s „00,,r
people who were the most concerned in s poi yis.te
were vested intere ph_„
ld
told again that there
l(Tachwiei e
without.
(Cheers.)
ought.u)seßuht
avi
ninnergev
se
plfi.
ertcostt
thfesp-
teehai plse.ainds soettoihoesnt_n, echowerphohatie
titior!
shied
erreesdp respected.
eir x
et!
'll
i(11)12eo f Hadb
ea ttihhneeyosyt redddrpteehargre_siat:grOehddrretesadstipislieeetnhettehuet °ehdrvelew:nsh vested
e-g::ll:ft?rsi-ifj:Pb ie;

.....•••

v tI tf
et sk
"1"'
• r••
Ith
hf pe •
bett
tNear:,
an•l
fie;
ti•
„,ab,
:11

H. • .0

• •ert,ti:
reudi