The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-25 00:00:00

the course of the speeches which he had delivered
during the late contest in the City, made use of such
statements. He believed that Mr. Baring had re-
served the real expression of his feelings for the bene-
fit of his Huntingdon constituents.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Now, let the:n examine what was meant
by that question. That there was no getting over
that fact, " that a free and unfettered importation of
corn must diminish the employment of agricultural
labour in this country." There was no getting over
it if it were a fact, but it was not a fact.—(Loud
cheers.) It was merely an assertion of Mr. Thomas
Baring, whic'h was opposed to all experience and all
fact.—(Cheers.) Persons who argued as Mr. Ba-
ring did, assumed that every quarter of wheat
imported from foreign countries would dis-
place one quarter of English wheat ; and calculating
that every man, woman, and child, consumed a quar-
ter of wheat in the year, they reckoned that every
quarter of foreign wheat which was consumed took
one customer from the English farmer. And then
they went on to contend, that as these customers
were taken from the English farmer, it would throw
his land out of cultivation, and agricultural labour
would go unemployed. But, in making these asser-
tions, they never looked at the fact that there were
living in this country eight or ten millions of people who
were not customers at all to the farmers for bread.
In order to establish their fact, they were
bound to show that every person in the king-
dom was supplied with as much agricultural
produce as they stood in need of. They assumed that
to be the case; but the contrary was the fact. The
report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the condition of the working classes in the agricul-
tural counties, stated that in Devonshire, in Dor-
setshire, in Wiltshire, in Somersetshire, in Hamp-
shire, in Northumberland, and in many other agri-
cultural counties, the people were ill-fed, ill:clothed,
ill-housed, ill-employed, and ill-paid. The Commis-
sioners appointed to inquire into the state of the poor
in Ireland, stated that there were five millions of per-
sons in that country living upon potatoes as their
daily food. Dr. Marsham, of notorious memory, had
stated their were ten millions of persons in this
country who rejoiced in potatoes and oatmeal. So
long as these people were ill-fed—so long
as they were forced to consume an inferior food in-
stead of wheat, which, no doubt, they would consume
if they could afford to purchase it—so long as such
was the case, the importation of wheat from abroad
would not displace one single quarter of English
wheat, until the whole of these people who now re-
joiced in potatoes and oatmeal were supplied, and as
the importation of these ten million quarters of wheat
must be' paid for in the produce of the industry of this
country, which would give additional employment,
so the English farmer would have his condition im-
proved by having a greater number of cus-
tomers. The last three years had been years
of great distress in the manufacturing districts,
and the English farmer had found in conse-
quence that he could not get a sale for
his produce. The League called themselves the
friends of the farmers, and said they were the only
organisation in existence which went the right way
to work to befriend and assist the farmer and the la-
bourer out of their difficulties. They would befriend
the farmer by finding him more customers.' Let them
look at these ten millions of people. Some of them
were paupers, supported at the farmer's cost. All were
bad customers ; but they said, " let us import grain
to feed these people. We must pay for that grain
by the produce of the manufacturing skill of this
country ; these people will then obtain employment at
good wages ; and, in addition to purchasing the fo-
reign grain, they will become customers to the farmer
for milk, and butter, and bacon, and cheese, and
eggs, and mutton, and beef; and a variety of
articles which they have never before consumed."
—(Cheers.) Now this statement was borne
out by facts. Two years ago they were amidst a
period of great ana bitter distress. Mills *ere
stopped. Men were idle; either beggars, or
thronging the workhouses as paupers, although they
were able and well-skilled, and willing to work. At
that period the farmers had a less sale for their live
stock than they now had, when trade had a little re-
vived. Now,*if this revival of trade, this taking again
into employment of some of those persons, had pro-
duced an increased consumption of beef and mutton
which had not previously existed, the extension of
trade, by giving employment to people who had not
hitherto been employed, would make those people
become consumers of live stock, which would
thereby obtain a more extended and steady market.
Let no one turn their mind aside from these facts,
nor attempt to mystify them. They could not get
wheat in Europe or America without paying for it,
and they must pay the freight and other expenses of
importation. They could not pay for it without
employing more people in this country than they at
present employed, for it must be paid for by labour.
If we paid for it in gold we must pay for gold by our
manufactured goods, which were the produce of la-
bour still.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Baring said that
every quarter of foreign corn that came into this
country displaced a quarter of home-grown corn. For
the last five years, a million and a half of quarters of
foreign corn were imported. Did they displace the
home-grown corn ? No. But the landlords tolerated
their introduction—first, because they could not be dis-
pensed with ; and secondly, that by keeping a limited
supply, they could still maintain the high prices of
corn. He had lately been in the mandacturing districts,
and was shocke I at the extreme poverty which pre-
vailed there. • He had been at the election at Exeter.
and had never seen greater misery than prevailed in
the neighbourhoods surrounding that town. The
condition of the agricultural population of Devon-
shire was of itself sufficient to condemn
the corn-laws.—(Cheers.) The Standard, Herald,
and Post, and occasionally the Times, in speaking of
a repeal of the corn-laws, said they would injure the
Condition of the agricultural labourer. One would
think, from the manner in which those newspapers
spoke, that the agricultural labourers were in the
perpetual enjoyment of a sunshine of felicity, that
they had high wages, were well clad, well taught,
comfortable, and prosperous, and yet there were none
so discontented, and none on whom want so bitterly
pressed, as those same agricultural labourers.—
(Cheers.) On an average, they had not more than
73. a week, Now, upon such a pittance, how could
they support their families ? So much for the state-
ments of Mr. Baring, that the unfettered importation
of corn would injure the agricultural labourer to a
considerable, extent. It must be owned that, in this
country, agriculture had not been carried to a very high
pitch of improvement. He had lately been through
many of the agricultural counties, both in England and
Scotland, and, except in some part of the Lothians,
cultivation had not even been carried on with com-
mon skill. Why, had they travelled by the railways
they would see the land on either side was in many
places overgrown v,ish rushes, which reared their
bristly heads, and seemed to say—" This is agricul-
tural. protection."—(Hear, hear.) There was at that
moment, on the stage near him, a gentleman exten-
sively engaged in agriculture, who told him that a
large portion of his land was in hay, and that he
could cultivate it to his advantage, but a clause in his
lease prevented his doing so ; and there were several
others of his class precisely in the same condition,
This was a species of freedom which the landlord be-
stowed upon his tenant.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He assured them the agricultural labourers were not
fully employed, nor anything like it.—(Hear.) The
land of this country was not cultivated to the
extent of which it was capable, nor anything ap-
proaching it. Its cultivation was hampered by the
corn• laws. He was not going to occupy further
time with that branch of argument. But he would
advert to another and a singular circumstance. The
Society for the Protection of Industry had been -of
late very active among the Spitalfields weavers, and
at 'the first meeting of that Society, in the Free-
masons' Tavern, a Spitalfields weaver was actually
produced to move the first resolution. This unfortu-
nate weaver was made to say, that by the withdrawal
of the restrictions upon foreign silk in 1824, the silk
trade had been injured; and secondly, he was
made to say, that the working classes were opposed
to the movement in favour of free trade. Now, that
was so manifestly untrue that it was scarcely worth
while to contradict it. He did not even believe
it to be true of the Spitalfields weavers. He
could not think that body were opposed to
them. At the London election they had held meet-
ings among the Spitalfields weavers in the very heart
of Spitalfields. Yet, so far from dissenting, not one
of that body but seemed to be as cordially in favour
of free trade as the League themselves. Now, he
would enter a little into the history of the silk trade.
From 1635 to 1692 the history of the silk trade
proved that the silk trade prospered more at home
than subsequently, when protection was extended.
In 1637 French silks, at the request of certain French
refugees, who established themselves in this country,
and commenced the silk manufacture, were prohibited
from importation ; and the importation of silk from
India and China was also prohibited. In 1719 Sir
Thomas Loom and his brother set up in Derby a
mill for preparing silk to be woven, they having made
a discovery in Italy. Previous to that time
no " throwing" of silk was done in this country.
Well, those gentlemen got a patent from Govern-
ment, and a high duty was put upon all " thrown"
silk coming from Italy, and all other places. The
patent expired in fourteen years ; and the Govern-
ment refused to renew it, but preferred paying Sir
Thomas Loom and his brother 14,000/. for the good
they had done this country by their " throwing mill"
at Derby. Up to 1766 the prohibitory duty re-
mained on thrown and manufactured silk ; and, in
fact, they were not allowed to come into this coun-
try. Our opponents should prove that at this period
fhe silk trade was most prosperous, but it happened
to have been most depressed.—(Hear, hear.) In
1776 there were, 7,072 looms out of employment in
London. To the silk weavers it was a period of almost
unexampled distress. In 1793 there were of Spital-
fields weavers 4,090 idle; and yet in 1773, just twenty