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

Mr. BOND said he had no doubt but that it was his in-
tention to commit a felony; and he must have le3n suc-
cessful had the complainant been a person easily inti-
midated. He should commit him to the House of Cor-
rection for six weeks, with hard labour.

Member for Sunderland was on the same side as the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth, but the
Noble -Lord the Member for the City of London had,
by his speech last night, injured the cause of repeal.
The League ,had not been neglectful of the sinews
of -ss ar, and this was the manner in which they provided
them. (The lion. Gentleman then read several extracts
from the addresses of the League, and from the speeches
of its leading- members, inculcating the necessity of
providing sufficient funds to carry on the agitation.)
k LEFT

We have reason to believe that the appointment of
Lord Heytesbury as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has
been all but definitively settled.—Evening Paper.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

POACHING EXTRAORDINARY. -We have often
heard of the ravages committed by the hooded crow on the
eggs of I ame during the breeding season, but we were
scarcely prepared for such a proof of wholesale destruction
as the following fact discloses. A few days ago, Mr. Purves,
tenant of Linton Burnfoot, ascertaining that there was a
hooded crow's nest in a certain tree on his farm, proceeded
to the spot with his gun with the intention of destroying the
brood of young, before they took their departure from the
parent nest. On arriving at the place, however, Mr. Purves
was much disappointed at discovering that the whole brood
had flown. Knowing the destructive propensities of this
vermin, he had the curiosity to examine the ground around
the foot of the tree, and was so astounded at the number ( f
partridge egg-shells which he found strewed about, that, lest
he should be accused of exaggeration, he took the precaution
of requesting two gentlemen, his neighbours, to assist him in
counting the shells, when, to their astonishment, they picked
up the enormous number of one hundred and ninety-six
shells of partridge eggQ, within a few yards of the tree I The
whole of these eggs were evidently consumed in feeding the
young birds.; but how many the old lady and gentleman had
themselves gobbled up without ever bringing them near
the family domicile, it would be difficult to estimate.—Kelso
Mail.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.
FRAME-WORK KNITTERS.

Mr. FERRAND wished to know why no Commis-
sioner had visited Nottingham, to inquire into the truth
of the allegations in the petition of the frame-work
knitters, which he had presented some time since.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that Commissioners had been
appointed to inquire into the state of the hand-loom
weavers and the frame-work knitters, and he had no
doubt they would soon visit the county of Nottingham.
ORANGE PROCESSIONS.

session to pass without abandoning some portion of
the ground on which the opposite system was based.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did not say this from
any idle wish to make mischief between the two sections
of the opposite party. It seemed to him that they were
deriving all the advantage from discussion which, with
a cause based on truth and justice, they were likely to
do. They were gradually gaining ground, whilst those
who were opposed to them were gradually losing
ground.—(Hear, hear.) Public opinion had fortunately
great influence with this country ; and it was on this
ground, that that important body which was opposed
to monopoly were entitled to the gratitude of mankind.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were now unable to defend this
law on its real merits ' • they assigned any ground but
the true one. Such deference was now necessary to
be paid to public opinion, that any law or insti-
tution which was assailed, must be defended on
public grounds. It was the difficulty of the opposite
party that they could not defend the common
law upon any material, general, or public grounds,
and that the people felt themselves aggrieved by it.
It was opposed by a vigilant, active, and intelligent body.
who had, in every way, examined, criticised, and tested
every ground on which the law was maintained, and they
found that every ground on which it now stood was un-
tenable. He asked them on what ground the suppor-
ters of the law now rested their defence ? There was
no one ground which he had heard, since he came into
that House, that had not been thoroughly examined,
and completely exposed. —(Hear, hear.) He was
anxious, therefore, to hear what fresh ground
was to be assumed. The ground aeon which
it was placed when first introduced was the most plausi-
ble, before it was tested by experience, when it proved
to be the most foolish on which it could stand—that was,
that it was dangerous for this country to be dependent
for its supply of food on other countries, and that there-
fore every thing should be done to encourage and pro-
tect English agriculture. Plausible as it seemed at first,
experience proved that argument to be most foolish.
It was assumed that we might depend upon other
countries for our revenue, and for the means of employ-
ment to millions of our people, whereby they should
obtain bread, but not dependent for the bread
itself.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") That was the plan
for the first enactment of the law—a plan which at
the time all thinking men derided, and now all dis-
interested men denounced and ridiculed. The returns
laid before the House during the last twenty years showed
that since the law was passed we had been dependent on
other countries for large supplies of corn, and in the last
five years to the amount of 17,000,000 quarters of corn
—(Hear, hear.)—and that, too, a supply not raised with
a view to this country, but obtained under circum-
stances the most disadvantageous to us.—(Hear, hear.)
During the thirteen years of the duration of the law
passed in 1815, there was actually imported from
foreign countries no less than thirty millions' worth of
corn for the consumption of the people of this country.
Therefore- he did not expect that the advocates for
monopoly in the home market, would allege a sufficiency
of home supply as an excuse—at least, he would not
expect such an excuse from any man having a re-
gard for truth and reputation. Whether this soil
could or could not produce enough to support the peo-
ple of Great Britain, he could not pretend to say ; but
the fact stood upon record, that it bad not
produced enough, and that they had been obliged to
import more corn from foreign countries during the
last thirty years than they had ever done before. He had
considered what were the other excuses urged in support
of this law, and having listened with attention to them
all, he must say that they had been every one shown to
be futile and totally insufficient. He had heard
from Honourable Gentlemen oppposite, on pre-
vious occasions, when this subject was discussed,
that those connected with the ownership of lands
had no interest in their continuance, but they
supported the corn-laws because those dependent
on them (the landowners) had a direct interest
in their maintenance. It was now, however, ascertained
beyond a doubt, that neither the farmer, nor the farmer's
labourer, nor any other class in the community, derived
any benefit from these laws, except the landowners them-
selves.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) No Member
of any agricultural county would now, he thought, ven-
ture for a moment to urge this flimsy pretext, so pal-
pably absurd, as any reason for the continuance
of the corn-laws ; no Hon. Member would now stand
up and say the farmers or their labourers had any in-
terest whatever in it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
interest of these classes in these laws, had been
fully and fairly inquired into by an active body,
and it was ascertained upon the most searching
investigation that so far from the corn-laws
being of any service to them, there was no-
thing would benefit the farmer and the agricultural
labourer more than their total and immediate repeal. The
claims of no class had been more prominently or more
frequently protruded upon the public than those of the
farmers. But if there was any doubt that corn-laws
were injurious to the farmer he (Mr. Villiers) would
undertake to bring before the bar of that House, or
before a Committee, such a body of evidence as would
leave no doubt on the subject. For the last 30 years the
farmers had boon, of all men, the most embarrassed.
But what had these corn-laws given to these classes ?
Why it was notorious that they had derived no benefit
from it.—(Hear, hear.) There was such competition
that it excluded the farmer from the slightest advan-
tage from the cora-laws. The farmer had been
duped and deceived by the promises of the corn-
laws.—(Hear, hear.) The landlords had told them
that they would insure him a certain price for his
corn; and what had been the result ? Why,
that he had been deluded and deceived. As to the
exemptions that had been procured for the farmer in
the payment of taxes, there was not a land-
lord in the House who did not know that
they contributed to swell the rent of the land-
owner.—(Hear, hear.) The Members of that House
dare not .call a single farmer before them and ask him
whether what they had done in that House as they said
for him had been at all to his benefit. Whatever relief
they had procured for the farmer through Parliament,
only swelled the rent of the landowner.—(Hear, hear.)
The farmers held their land not for the in-
terest of themselves or the community but the
landlords. He would venture to say, from the informa-
tion he had received, that net a Member in that
House would dare to get up and say the
corn-law was for the benefit of the farmers,
and that it existed for their interests. He defied
Honourable Members to say that the law was conti-
nued for such purposes. But then it was said it was for the
labourer's interests that the price of food should be high.
There was a volume before them
_produced by the la-
bours of a Committee of that House, which effec-
tually disproved that assertion. No man in the face
of that volume could dare to rise and say that
these laws were for the advantage of the labourer.
Their mouths were all stopped—they were closed by
the evidence of their own Committee. This was
an authority which they did not dare dispute.
That evidence proved that no one could be lower in the
scale ofcivilisation than the agricultural labourer; so much
so indeed that he had become so depraved as to be almost
placed out of the pale of civilization. Scarcely a day
passed that they did not read in the leading journals of
the country discussions as to the cause of their dis-
affection. The "papers were full of what were called
their crimes, but which, in reality, were caused by their
distresses.:He said:again, that no man would dare to rise
and plead the advantage of the labourer as the excuse of
the corn-laws. His Hon. Friend the Member for Stock-
port, by his motion at the beginning of the session, had
prevented them from using that argument. Did they
dare assent to that motion; did they dare run the risk
of calling a single farmer or labourer to support what
they asserted? That motion was a fair one, and to the
point, and they were afraid to call their own tenants
before them to meet it. Was there ever such an instance
of men shrinking from inquiry, simply because they
dared not meet it? He did not expect then that either
the farmer or the labourer would be brought forward
again as the- ground of maintaining the corn-laws.
They bad read to-day in the- leading journal of the
country a statement, that wherever the old practice of
allowing the peasant to buy his corn cheap was pursued
in Suffolk, there property was safe; wherever, in fact; the
corn-law was virtually repealed, there property was
safe. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) who, he un-
derstood was going to move an amendment to his resblu-
tion, meant to prove, probably, that the high price of
food was a benefit to the people. lie would ask the
Honourable Gentleman how it was that the agricultural
labourer was always contented when food was low, and
discontented when corn was dear. There was no an-
swer to that.—(Hear.) He defied them to answer. He
said that when the price of food was low the agricultural
labourers were contented—when the price was high they
were discontented, and the peace of the country was en-
dangered.— (Cheers.) He asked the gentleman who had
thought it decent to give notice of an amendment upon
his (Mr. V.'s) motion—(Oh, oh, and Hear, hear)—to re-
ply to that statement.—(Cheers.) He would read the
Hon. Gentleman a letter.
Mr. FERRAND—And I will read you another.
Mr. VILLIERS would read a letter from a magistrate
of an agricultural county, Buckinghamshire, who was no
supporter of his (Mr. Villiers') views, nor a member of
the Anti-Corn-law League. What was tha account that
magistrate, who was a Conservative, gave of the pea-
santry of his: county. His letter was addressed to the
farmers of Buckinghamshire.—(The Hon. Gentleman
read the letter, which was to the effect that he saw with
pain the condition of the labourers, their damp, in-
wholesome, crowded cottages. He saw men who tra-
versed the whole day from farmer to farmer in search of
employment, returned broken-hearted and desponding,
without the means of procuring food for their famishing
wives and children. It was only the charity, of the
farmers and their wives, or of the poor who had but
their last dish of potatoes to share, that such families
were kept alive until they could obtain a ticket of ad-
mission to the workhouse.)
Mr. FERRAND—What does he say of the poor-law?
Mr. VILLIERS—That was the letter of a magis-
trate of Buckinghamshire, a purely agricultural
county ; that was the state of the peasantry after
thirty years of protection.—(Cheers.) Did they think
that there was no other county in the same state ? He
had a letter from a farmer in another county, who said
that he could bear testimony to the wretched condition
of the labourers, but the farmers could pay no more
wages ; and in his own parish there were hundreds of
labourers with families, who received only 7s. a week.
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) had put a question
to him respecting the poor-law, but did he know that
the cost of supporting a man and woman, with a family
of three children, cost 17s. a week in the workhouse.
The farmer proceeded to state that the labourers were
far worse off than the people in the workhouse, but the
farmers could give them no higher wages, owing to the
high rents. All the exemptions that the farmers enjoyed
were only intended to benefit the landlords.—(Cheers.)
He (Mr. Villiers) would ask the gentleman who was to
move the amendment (Mr. Ferrand) to avow himself at
once as the friend of the landlord, not of the labourer,
and as a truckler to the dominant party in the country.
—(Cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman

the President of the Board of Trade did not
like the arguments which were used by his supporters.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had thrown out doubts as to
whether the importation of foreign corn would not dis-
place a portion of the agricultural labour of the country.
But the Right Hon. Gentleman had never told them in
what manner that displacement was to take place. Had he
done so, that would have implied some knowledge of agri-
cultural subjects ; and, as well as he recollected, the agri-
tural knowledge of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not held
in very high esteem by the agriculturists of the country.
The Hon. Member for Sussex had imputed to the Right
Hon. Gentleman such a want of knowledge in agricultu-
ral matters, that he said the Right lion. Gentleman
could not distinguish an ox from a plough.—(Loud
laughter, and cries of " No," from the Ministerial
benches.) He stood corrected. The expression was,
" that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not distinguish
an ox from a donkey."--(Renewed laughter, and Opposi-
tion cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had assumed
that there would be a displacement of agricultural pro-
duce consequent upon the importation of foreign corn,
which would lead to a displacement of agricultural
labour, but the Right Hon. Gentleman had given no
data—he had merely jumped to a conclusion—but in
order to some to that conclusion, it was necessary to go
through a certain series of operations. He did not tell
them the price at which labour would be displaced. He
supposed that labour could only be displaced by land
being thrown out of cultivation. He had not
stated the price which would render cultivation so
unprofitable as to throw land out of cultivation.
He had given them no data whatever on the
subject. He could not understand by what means laud
was to be thrown out of cultivation. It was a delusion
to suppose that if a little spirit, a little science, and a
little economy, were exhibited in the cultivation of the
land, that cultivation could not be made profitable. If
the Right Hon. Gentleman had paid a little attention to
the experiments of Earl Ducie on the subject, he would
have seen his error. That Noble Lord had stated it as
the result of his experiments that the apprehension that
the importation of corn from foreign countries would
throw land out of cultivation, was unfounded, because he
found that by carefully cultivating land himself without
paying rent, he could produce corn at a lower price than
it could be produced in foreign countries. Of course
rent made a difference.—(Derisive laughter from the
Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Opposition.)
Gentlemen opposite were amused, and he had no doubt
every one of them would make a speech on the subject,
but they should recollect that his argument was now
merely directed to the assertion of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, that the importation of foreign corn would throw
land out of cultivation. Now before land was thrown
out of cultivation, they would have no rent, and before
they could assume that it would displace labour, they
must show that land could not be cultivated profitably
by allotments to the labourer. Now there were many
instances in which land had been profitably occupied in
allotments, which could not be profitably occupied in
any other manner. He did not expect that the Right
Hon. Gentleman would repeat that argument • but a
more wonderful argument still had been shadowed forth
by the Right Hun. Gentleman about the beginning of
the session. He said they should be careful how they
meddled in this matter, lest the owners of land should
become the occupiers. He was actually alarmed lest
the landowners of the country should oust the farmers,
and take upon themselves to become industrious.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Ile did not think there was
much fear of the owners of the land becoming
industrious. The farmer's life was a hard one. He
had to be up early in the morning. Now there
was no fear that the landowners would cease to lead a
life of idleness, but none of these were arguments to
show that labour would be displaced by a repeal
of the corn-laws. On the contrary, he believed that by
a repeal of the corn laws manufactures would be en-
couraged, and the demand for labour increased. The
agricultural labourer, even now, went to the manufac
turing districts for employment. Mr. Porter stated
that upwards of three hundred and sixty thousand
labourers had gone from the agricultural to the manu-
facturing districts, and if it had not been for manufac-
tures, every one of these labourers would have been com-
peting with the agricultural labourers in the rural districts.
Did not the Right Hon. Gentleman think that if those
improvements in agriculture were to take place, of which
so much had been said, they would not have the same
effect as the importation of foreign corn ? It was now
said that the time had come when the greatest quantity
should be obtained for the lowest prices. In his (Mr.
Villiers's) opinion, the Right Hon. Gentleman should
argue as much against improvements as importation.
Another curious document had appeared—it had been
said the agricultural classes bore a greater proportion to
the population than any other classes. Now, what was
the fact ? Why, that this class was only one-
seventh of the population, according to the
publications that had taken place. The fact
was that these pretences could no longer exist.
and then they were brought back to the question in-
volved in this law, and that was, whether the community
were to have a full supply of food at the cheapest
rate or not ?—(Hear, hear.) Did not this law. he would
ask, tend to produce the defective supply that existed at
present. He stood there to assert the rights of the
people to have as much food as possible at the cheapest
rate. That was the right of the people. He threw
upon the supporters of the corn-laws the onus of proving
that the present corn-laws admitted of an abundant and
steady supply of corn in the home market, that they
made food more accessible to the poor man. That was
the point they were called upon to discuss—(Hear)—that
was what they had to prove ; they must convince the
House that there was no injustice in the present system
before they could eall upon the House to sup-
port it. He agreed with Lord Grenville, who, when
this law was about being imposed, declared in his place
in the House of Lords that nothing could justify them
in tampering with the subsistence of the people but the
most imperative necessity. He maintained that the
present law forbade an abundant supply of food when
most needed, and thwarted the designs of Divine Provi-
dence, who made different seasons and different climates,
and so ordered that no nation might be wholly de-
pendent on itself.—(Hear, hear.) Food was power, and
those who supplied the food might be said; to a great ex-
tent, to make the people dependent on them, and have
them under their control. Why should any body of
men be permitted to have control over any other class
in this country? but so it was. Those who supported
the present corn-laws should at all events show some
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. Some time ago great sympathy had been
manifested for the condition•of the working classes; and
Hon. Members affectea 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. He 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 ?—(Hoar, 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 said before that they had had all the ad-
vantages that experience could give them. It was so ;
they had within the last ten years four years of
scarcity and four of plenty. From 1832 to 1836 corn
was abundant. From 1831 to 1842 corn was scarce and
dear. During the four years of plenty the average cost
of wheat was 465. a quarter; during the four years of
scarcity the average price was 665. a quarter. It ap-
peared from the calculations of Mr. M'Cullcch 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 cheap years, the people
consumed seventeen millions of quarters, and,
during the dear- years, fourteen millions. In the
cheap years, the people paid 164,000,000 h for
17,000,000 of quarters ; in the dear years, 194,000,0001.
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 ultimate 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
Bill 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 albs-bodied
paupers who were unable to find employment in come-

elli°
quence of the distress arising from bad harvests ? In t great improvement, and that the circumstances, isr 1842 the number was 407.570, while in 1836 the number
which land was now held was not' avourable ton,of
was only 300,000. In the large towns during the years of overeent. He had particularly referred to thisrdy of
dear prices the increase in the amount of poor rates was the subject, because he had anticipated that the 51e4;ote
very great. In four years the increase was 134 per cent. organic chemistry, and the lectures now bsingsb' ill
in Manchester, 52 per cent. in Bolton, 30 per cent. in ; were likely to supply the deficiency of past tit: eerleet
Oldham, and 159 per cent. in Sheffield. Hon. Gentlemen had pointed to those necessities simply for th
.P,.".",tet
might attribute this distress to over-speculation or over- of shoeing that great seeritices were required U.".,011
production, but, unfortunately, that distress was uni- part of the landlords, in order to :II
versal. The increase in the amount of pauperism ass the tenant to effect the necessary iinproverae.newiole
hardly less in the agricultural districts than it was in the feared that those sacrifices were not likely to b.
,sf ,r manufacturing. He held in his hand returns of the in- If the repeal of these laws took place, instead `,l, tee crease of the pauperism in the agricultural districts, and peering at the hustings as the serf of the landl 174
it would be found that in fifteen of the chief agricultural tenant wnuld appear there to exercise his indeed
counties the increase of pauperism had been 21 per cent. judgment in the choice of a representative. He Dce tbe
Such a state of things must necessarily affect the revenue. the custom of granting leases had diminished 1.1"_ lost
It would appear, from the Parliamentary returns made passing of the Reform Bill, and there was not t
cor in 1842, that one of the Excise taxes, which was ex- likelihood o: the custom increasing. Such was theftoed,
petted to yield 78,400/., only yielded 58,000/. In Oc- petition for land that the landlord was eomPa ssible
tuber, 1842, the revenue obtained from the Excise was safe.
He was sure of obtaining the highest Peeteld 0
733,4001. less than in 1841. There was no part of this price for his land, and his rent was safe, because I!
_hid.,
subject which deserved more of the attention of that' priority orclaim over other creditors. Further, t.nteeoeo
House than the effect which these taxes on food had lords of this country were, generally speaking, onl) hie ells
upon crime. In 1836 the committals had fallen to 20,000, for life, and they had but little motive therefore tobedeoj
having been 22,000 in 1834. What had been the increase capital in the improvement of their land. He crifieet
in those years which had been under the influence of dear that landlords would never make the necessary sa hied prices ? In 1836 the committals were 20,000, while in until they saw that their interest consisted in their low°
1842 they had risen to 31,000. Actually an increase of raising the greatest amount of produce at the old
11,000 in the dear years over the cheap ones. Then, price. If protection laws were revealed, the!teiel of
with respect to emigration. The average amount of have the landlords competing for tenants, iel.iiieo
emigration during the cheap years was 70,000, but in tenants competing for landlords ; they would s" their
1841 it was 116,000, and in 1842 it had reached 128,000. looking for men of skill and capital to cultivate aioni
He said there was no instance in which it could be shown land. Ile was bound to admit that the farniersforepi
that the working classes were not well off during the parts of the country were no less reluctant t
scelf
continuance of cheap prices of food. He would refer leases than landlords were to grant them, but it Weetest
the House to the opinion of the late Lord Liverpool, because there was such uncertainty in the Pi bat
expressed in the year 1822, when the agricultural body system.—(Hear, hear.)
lie ventured to "I'l '4
complained to Parliament of the existence of great there was no intelligent farmer in the 'tool*
distress amongst them. Lord Liverpool onthat occasion, who would not sooner take free trade, alb pro.
in the House of Lords, said that lowness of price was nied by a lease, than continue a tenant at will with
sure to benefit the working classes. The existing low raises of protection which were never realised.--,.'ee hed
prices, he said, had produced great benefit in the large They were now, therefore, in this position. Tu 'for .
towns, by causing a fall in the poor-rates. That opinion started with a promise to depend on this countri, the,.
was expressed in the year 1822, at a time when it was supply of food, and they were bound to admit tbatwiel
said that unparalleled distress, existed in the agricultural had not succeeded. He wanted to know theehtioh be
districts. He (Mr. Villiers) would ask then the Hon. ground there was for mistrusting the system,* „ideal
Member for Knaresborough how he could hope to advocated—the system of having the supply a_ePojoblo
benefit the working classes by increasing the price of upon competition ? Why the Right Hun owe'
food? He (Mr.Villiers)would refer the House to a report Gentleman at the head of the Government how
which had been made by a Committee of that House, times went out of his way to prove lei it
appointed to inquire into the state of the agricultural entirely they might rely upon that
pl, in' ft had
districts. It was a report which the Right Honourable every case except that of the issue of money otieb
Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had been said, indeed, that the effect of the systellitrf °f
himself drawn up. In that report it was stated that the he proposed would be to drain the coati,. woe
evidence which had been adduced before the Committee all its bullion, but the experience of the last ficeooll
established beyond doubt the fact that great improve- showed that the exports of manufactures to conti.arts 0
meat had taken place in the condition of the agricul- corn-growing countries had increased, whilst exroid tr
tural labourer. This was in the year of low prices. other countries had diminished. He could not svinieo
He (Mr. Villiers) was ready to take the authorities ferring to the objection that his measure was tonnvid eol
which had been so often quoted by Hon. Gentlemen op- He wanted to know who it was that said so. Pstick bf
posite in the discussions on the Factory Bill. He was the majority in that House say that they would bad
ready to take those authorities to show how beneficial the law as it at present stood ? Would he then Kayesooll. low prices were to the health and morals of the working any chance of conciliating them by proposing aot the
population. The Noble Lord (Ashley) in his speeches moderate fixed duty?—(Hear, hear.) Would n vete
on the Factory Bill had frequently referred to the same objections be made to both proposals ? at
writings of Dr. Hawkins, and Monsieur Bellamie, and he were many gentlemen in that House who said tin; if itss
(Mr. Villiers) was ready to quote from those authorities they objected to was a regular trade in corn ;an ing to show how detrimental scarcity and dearness were to were the case there could be no hope Of in duif•
the physical and moral condition of the people. Both them to agree to a moderate filed adlaiss
these authorities declared it to be their opinion, that Whenever they could bring themselves t°,oo'
wherever scarcity of food existed, there also would be a that tl-ey were not justified in restricting the suol. fre
prevalence of typhus fever. In fact, this was the opinion food, they might be expected to he as anxious re Right
of almost every person who had written on the subject, trade in corn as any other class of society. 11)1. VP°
who was capable of judging. In the Manchester In- Hon, Gentleman the President of the Board (
to
effect
firmary, during the dear years, 196 more inmates died had observed, the other day, that if they wished
than in the cheap years. From returns which he had any change in commerce they should do it e"`',, to '"
obtained from sick clubs, it appeared that 25 per cent. and he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman P-. Ger
more died during dear years than cheap ones.—(The evils arising from uncertainty. The Right 1.1°,',10 the
Hon. Gentleman then read from pamphlets, which had tleman had triumphantly referred to the fact ttueco ee
been published by Dr. Allison, of Edinburgh, and Dr. consequence of repealing the duty on wool had oineedi Fitzgerald, of Clonmel, to show the . pernicious improved price in the market ; yet all the arge, bs°
effects of scarcity and dearness of price. In which were used against free trade in et gal
the opinion of these writers, years of scarcity been urged against free trade in wool- .a, di were always accompanied by a corresponding amount other measures exhibited a similar result. , `ii WI of typhus fever. He had written to Dr. Hun- not know any instance in which more capital i..'„e that°
ter, of Bloomsbury, for his opinion on the subject, invested, on the faith of an existing law. than I". ,hoaa
and he stated that he had had an extensive practice for the beer duties. No consideration whatever iva'ressoe
nearly twenty years, and had seen the disease of typhus for those vested interests. Nor did he see onYes now
fever in all its degrees of malignity. There were iiume- why all should nut be prepared to make sacrifices keel!
rous predisposing causes, such as want of cleanliness the great public welfare required it. He did not witai
and pure air, but nothing could equal that great predis- that the change in that case had been attendedr Oa
posing agent—a scarcity of nutritious food. This alone evil, although, perhaps, at first some tiers° ;sva
carried off tens of' thousands in a year. 1\ henever food suffered from it. Again, in respect to the esini, le!
was scarce there typhus fever prevailed. Dr. Hunter of machinery. When it was proposed to repeal 4 eel went on to say that he had known a family of nine per- for preventing that exportation, many
sons who resided in a pure country district, and these engaged in manufactures opposed the repel"! nislity
persons were all attacked with typhus fever, which ground that they had invested their capital In..cbeelt
of those
repeat
th
arose entirely from a want of proper nutritious food. factures in the faith of the law, and that, if ,m%edfu'
This was the opinion of Dr. Hunter. It might be asked, were exported, they would lose the foreign lie"' what had that to do with the question, as it was not the their manufactures.
bad been
object of the corn-law to produce this scarcity. He Mr. BORTHWICK—But that measure
~,
wanted, then, to knew what was the object of the corn- eighteen years in progress.—(Hear, and a laugn..! thief
law.—(Hear, hear.) If it was not intended to Mr. VILLIERS—But the corn.law had hee:rdisi produce scarcity, he wished to know why the years in progress.—(Hear, hear.) The people ° I.tice of
opposite intention had never been avowed ? It contented with the law for permitting the exP n4„gaiet's
was precisely at the moment when the people were machinery, and there had been great complaintso. lie well fed by the abundant home supply, that the agricul- it, but he did not think that it had done anYZeccisial '',
turists always beset that House with their complaints. thought thrt everything which promoted the '1 1,, eitt4
How was it that in all their inquiries the question wae, exchange of products must be beneficial.---Weadee cos;
how can we raise the price ? They were frequently When the abolition of the turnpike trusts was Unerrso,l found attempting to diminish the quantity by lessening sideration, it was alleged that a great number of e faith
the breadth of land sown ; and in 1836, when corn was had invested their property in these trusts unto'
~ ons;
cheap, the people well fed and contented, the rates di- of the Acts of Parliament. But the change wa,' it tv ,
minishing, and employment abundant, the agriculturists dered necessary for the public advantage, °int, cid!.
were complaining, and asking how they were to remedy made. There was another change to which "..or.lat.
this state of things.—(Hear, hear.) He said then the attention of the House. That was the old nu, ete,
that the tendency, of the corn-laws was to produce —(Hear, hear, from Mr. Ferrand and otherse/„. old
scarcity, and scarcity was the cause, as he had shown, of thought that was a case in point. He believed
si." pa'
want, disease, death, and crime.—(llear, hear.) How poor-law was prejudicial to the people themsell'eenecty
was it that the most distinguished of the persons who they did not think so.—(Hear, hear.) Their e:srwer.; opposed the law when it was passed, charged it on the dons rested upon it—their habits and characters their
advocates of the law that they wanted to produce scar- formed by it. But the change was made aga,_"t slitre
city ? How was it that Lord Grenville, whose language feelings—alear, hear)—a sudden and soniewu7 of the lie had used in his resolutions, said that such was the gent change, utterly disregarding the feelitigs hear.)
purpose of the law, and that he therefore opposed it ? people who were the most concerned in it.—(Hear,es,, pee,r.
It was denounced on the same grounds by others. The The House ought never to have passed the "%hove_
respected father of the present Prime Minister denounced law without having first repealed the corn_oold be
the law as oppressive on the people, and declared his be- (Cheers.) But in respect to this motion, be
which aill', lief that it was only enacted in order to keep up the told again that there were vested interests 111"1„tecorl,
prices that prevailed during the war—that it was, in fact, be respected. Had they respected what the Ps.evr.itie!t, a law for perpetuating what was in itself a great misfor- sidered their vested rights in the poor-law. fs---(`if the
tu
ne. He foretold that the agriculturists would even- hear.) Had they regarded the vested rights the
tually suffer the most from it, and he verily believed that people when they passed the corn-law to
~he riot.
the late Sir Robert Peel's prediction had been amply ful- price of bread in order to raise the fortunes nt,!„ nor filled. What were the riots ?—and at the time it was (Cheers.) Had they done anything to enable the ;
passed, did the working people believe then that the to meet the change in the poor-law?—(Hear, hear)
t. law was passed for their benefit ? Why did not the said the Hon. Gentleman, " but you " Government meet them with arguments instead of artil- Ferrand) " are going to conciliate the riaedhdli)..y_rsitiuwPbsP;:l."a,
lery ?—(Hear.) Instead of doing so, they bore down ing the present corn-laws, for there is no otnrciig t,...1
upon them with cannon. Was the state of opinion which you can gain their favour then by ePnueso it. ,4
better now ? Only two years ago, the Hon. Member for law and assailing those who propose to rep tad
two,
Somereetshire objected to the Right Hon. Gentleman's (Hear, hear.) There was another law, the made '
tariff, which was brought ill in the midst of great dis- against the abolition of which the same OPPenow 0
tress, anti with the intention of relieving it. That Hon. made and upon the same grounds as woo. od to.
Member objected to the tariff, on the ground that it against the abolition of the corn-law. lie l'ofe ftt`hy
would diminish the price of food from the increased sup- he was able in this case to cite the authority
iectettho
ply it would admit frotn the United States and else- man whose political conduct was not often rest mop 4
Bon. • 0
where. He had read all the speeches at the meetings of c nsiderations of mere humanity. (The,,,r Pitt ni,,i h
the protection societies that had been lately held, and he then read an extract from a speech of -eu
iie. 141"teee
could not discover that they had any other object than debate upon the abolition of the slave tra andrstae oed
that of increasing the price of food. Indeed, at a meeting Mr. Pitt declared that he "could not mie be alleios
held in the county of Surrey, one gentleman, of greater principle on which a few individuals should their
courage than the rest, stated distinctly what all the to set up their interests against the rights andrieiP ea
others meant. He said they were assembled there for of millions. He did not understand such a Ps,,,teln; be the purpose of advancing their own interest ; it was a plea for upholding so wicked so infamousl, -I,houluiths
their interest to make rood dear and scarce, and they why, for the sake of a few planters, thousand: Ile
toe
wore met there for that purpose. What other object doomed to perpe:ual and intolerable Miseurithe O'lle
could these laws have, when they were told of settlements barred the odious system, and he called 11PL'ohtion• ood
and mortgages, and capital that had been invested in to rise with one voice and demand its au if he ;err
land, as reasons for preserving them, except for the pur- admitted that he spoke with warmth, and hie o°ol
pose of obtaining a price for the produce that should speak otherwise he eould detest himself fuhrt be Woe-
enable the landlord to meet these obligations ? This was tion.") That declaration of Mr. Pitt ri,,f,len onetheou
what he wanted to prove to the House and to the to the present case.—(Hear, hear.)
cireds of
6too,
• country. Yet, with all this protection, the state of agri- sidered the enormous mischief done to hundred
.h sy
tog
culture was but a low one ; in what condition was it after sands, aye of millions, by the operation of
alf coasr:s of
thirty years of protection ? They had it on the autho- he asked the House would it, for the sake ormniP *test
rity of more than one Member of that House, that the the interests of a few great men, abandon the great
state of agriculture was shamefully low. Then there the greatest advantage and refuse to redeem were the two Right Hon. Gentlemen, the head of her wrong?—(Cheers.)
Majesty's Government, and the Noble Lord the Secre- Mr. HAWES seconded the resolution-
erosient etor
tary of the Colonies, they had both read a sort of lecture Mr. FERRAND rose to move the el! id be itatike
on agriculture to the persons in their neighbourhood. which he had given notice. He said it wri.s) to lats el
The Right Hon. Baronet said at the dinner at Tamworth sible for the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vil !er inter° the
that they had met not for the protection, but the promo- the working classes think that he had th,elir eyes °body
tion of agriculture—that was the distinction—(Hear, view. The working classes had opened Ord that t boo
hear, and a laugh)---and that he regretted the practice projects of the Anti. Corn-law League, atl;,red 0° The
of the country was not that of granting leases ; he said was so despised and detested, that they i.stricts• eesed
at:the same time that if any tenant of his should call on one public meeting in the manufacturing gist oll;gue
him to grant one, he should hesitate a long time before working classes themselves were diametntoet"' 1
the ;14 and
he refused his request.---(Laughter.) lie also alluded to to a repeal of the corn-laws. Why did
to boldaYinight
another source of mischief to the farmer that arising go into the manufacturing districts, ~,a so, they 10
from the extensive preservation of game, and stated that broadly put the question ? If they d!"l",,yertiu'e,inion
he had no hesitation in saying, if any tenant complained call upon the House to listen to theirlsritbeir7efelly on this ground, he would give directions for the destruc- Manchester those who attempted to eXPr_7ose sha,7,o had tion of hares and rabbits to the extent that should pre-. in the presence of the League were tvwerbaeart of the
venthis experiencing any loss. All this was very laudable; treated. The Hon. Member for W°'._ the statera a
he read it for the purpose of showing the admission it read a letter from a landed proprietor ot, would .
which
contained ; but, he would ask, had this example been agricultural poor, but he (Mr. Ferranatireatneent
which
followed in any one instance throughout Staffordshire ? letter from a working man, stating thew Leagne',,t• that
He had very great doubts of it. At the same dinner at he had received from the Anti-Corn-la •strats Jae(
magi • corn .
which this was stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, Pro- was disgraceful to them and to the ,_.. Arlo- ~, gas fessor Buckland was present, and he declared that the town. On the 14th of Februaryt"l`rade Ha% and
agriculture of that district was very bad; that he had League held a meeting in the Free
for stockrL open
seen more thistles in a single field there than were to be chester, which the Hon. Member
speech to `.'. get
and in all Lincolnshire, and advised them to run down Colonel Thompson declared in their
r., he (31!•ling
and have a look at the model farm of Earl Ducie, near to the public. On the 20th of February anti_nutith,
Bristol. At another dinner the Noble Lord (Stanley) rand received a letter from a for the g not
said that the farmers were only beginning to bestir made every inquiry he could vouch„ch could mid
themselves, and mentioned the advantages to be derived (A laugh)--of the statements, which
then
eetwezeher °peal°
from tile draining, but said he should probably be told be denied. The Honourable
as, whose
.„erelY
that this was an expensive operation, and that a tenant a letter signed by six Perlicansanwhreh
could not undertake it. To this the meeting was said to he did not give affirming that a wor
, estion to the by til,
have vociferously responded with "Hear, hear."— rose in the meeting and put the
__as oiseu hoar,
working Ij4.''''
(Laughter.) He alluded to long leases, and the passage man—" Is this a public meeting ',ikwe dogs at :1;0 the
was received with marked applause, the meeting being policemen, who " rushed upon '
in hopes to get something more out of the Noble Lord —(Laughter)—dragged him rovheirmttiebne.hfoelnes,
jof,wheitrheouhte
on the subject of leases. But the Noble Lord floor and conveyed him to the
said there were many other topics—(A laugh) was 'detained four hours, and thens
,iO3. At 'to
he
sta
discalpisprlgiedeuheb's:t Ati:e
—on which he had to address them.—Laughter.) any accusation being made againntiaun
At these meetings there always seemed to be( some prac- Ferrand's) recommendation he man
told him duct be'
tical man present who generally commented on these Moore, a stipendiary was that e„cfid by Lb°,
speeches from Noble Lords and Hon. Gentlemen. On police had acted quite rightly. Was
who was r- Mont"-
this occasion a practical agriculturist named Neilson was coming a stipendiary magistrate,,,,e Ron. . , _bou-
present, and he spoke strongly in favour of leases, and üblic money for public services?ct ei"
h agricultqatitri: by
it,
against the conditions to which tenants were generally for Wolverhampton said that
,f
ment in agriculta
thigber
magistrate,
bound with respect to cultivating the estates. On the rers were derived of ern
Pl?find emploYment rode il
same subject they had also the authority of Sir H. free-trade ing orn, they
V
that he (Mr' For h t WA°
1836 and 1837, and since ill the
a
t state in , ill
Varney, and the Hon. Member for Bridgewater. These wages in manufactures."'uThe experiment wreasno heard
speakers at agricultural dinners seemed all to agree in
ereons and
one particular, namely, that there were certain circum. the Hon. Member forSteocf
tkhpeour
week, b
stances which utterly precluded improvement. The that there were hundreds
a es which
at niott but the clothe state -
lion. Member then read an extract from a speech of manufacturing districts living on l Vs.
Colonel Powell, stating that one thing alone was notes- having no other coveringea,, was
that
the haPPdi. . (gear;
sary for agriculture, namely, fresh rents, corn rents, and they wore in
.th, d ,
had been belt' veer°
speech of Sir Robert Pigott, President of the Worcester.. hear.) The !manufacturersemany,
and "
htt °rills°
_dt:
long leases. He also read an extract from the which the agricultural were inviter ,in test
shire Agricultural Society, to the effect that if:the tenant Ytouse, for they sands of p
h werworking•men ong— LetlV"
had a fixed tenure in land it would be an advert:4;e both wealthy, but
heard.—(Hear.)
and whom they treated. ,he truth'
to tenant and landlord. There were :le,
accounting for the.prosnenty or the Scotch farmer. He would not dare to
other means of be t e Those men whom thewith boy
would not wee ee
....ey Tn e Ilouse with any further extracts. talitywmhenenhthadey,
It- 7roUld not be disputed, that agriculture was copal* of These foopreyneeadrsthpeeitir
tmio=schteorognoxe via oh•