The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-27 00:00:00

duty on the importation of our manufactures, did not
the Hon. Member for Manchester think that even he
would be a better customer to the manufacturer than
the inhabitant of New York ? It would be no difficult
matter to adduce many reasons to prove to the
Honourable Member for Manchester, the advan-
tages of the home trade. They were secure of that at all
events, as long as they could assure them a sufficiency of
money to purchase.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord,
the Member for Sunderland, who was not now., in his
place, had, last night, referred to the condition of the
labourers in the county which he (Mr. Bankes) had the
honour to represent. The Noble Lord had said that the
Hon. Member for Stockport had stated more than once
that their condition was worse than the condition of any
other labourers, and that statement hail not been contra-
dicted. It was true that the lion. Member for Stock-
port had made the statement more than once. He was
in the habit of making statements more than once ; but
if those statements were contradicted, it was rather hard
that those persons would not take the trouble to attend
to the contradictions, but would continue to repeat them
as if they never had been contradic'ed. Ho would now
refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed to in-
quire into the condition of the women and children ens-
pleyed in agriculture, as a proof that the report which
had been laid on the table at the close of last session, had
been the foundetion of much vituperation of the county
which he represented, and of the other counties of the
south of England. lie believed that the true reason why
the county of Dorset had been fixed on in this manner,
was because it was representel by a Noble Lord
ho had taken up the cause of the factory women
and children, and it was thought by Honourable
Gentlemen opposite that it would be a fair retaliation
to move for this Commission.—(Cries of " Oh, oh."
Now, he would read a few extracts from the report of
the Commissioners on the state of the agricultural
labourers in the county of Dorset.—(The Hun. Member
here rend several extracts from . the report alluded to,
from which it apps wed that the svemen themselves
stated that out door work was beneficial both to their
health and spirits, and that the medical men who were
examined, stated that, in their opinion, such was the
case. The Hun. Gentleman also read an extract, de-
scribing the clothing club at Blandford, which, last year,
had expended 2,0001. in the purchase of articles of
clothing for its members.) lie begged to call the atten-
tion of the Hon. Member to the amount expended by
this clothing club in a limited district, as a proof of the
value of the home market.—(tlear, hear.) He now came
to the subject of wages.—(Hear, hear.) The report
stated that, in the district of Blandford, wages were by
no. means low, and, so far from placing the county of
Dorset lower than others as to wages, it showed that it
was not so low in this respect as Somersetshire and
Wiltshire. He did nut say bat that, in many parts of
the county, wages were lower than in the Blandford
district, owing to the superabundance of the population.
He wished the wages were everywhere as good as they
were at Blandford ; but he was certain of this—that
wages would not be made better by the repeal of the corn-
laws.—(Cheers.) That was the question before them,
and he felt convinced that, however much manufactures
might be extended by that measure, they could not be
so extended as to give employment to all those who
would ba thrown out of employment in the agricultural
districts in consequence of that measure.—(Hear.)
Evers if the exchange could be made, he was net satis
fled that it would be for the advantage of the labouring
class. He had never drawn any distinction between
manufactures and agriculture—their interests were
amalgamated; but if they looked to the comfort, the hap
piness, and the morality of the labouringclaesee, he could
nut give the preference to the manufacturing over the
agricultural districts.—(Hear.) Admitting that the
agricultural labourer received less money, it must be
remembered that money was not all that contributed to
happiness. Admitting that wages were lower in the
agricultural districts, still the labourer had more
time to attend to his comforts ; and as to
happiness, he should c‘rtainly give the preference
to the labourer of the agricultural districts.
The Noble Lord (Lord Hoe ick) had very much exagge-
rated the distress which prevailed in the southern coun-
ties of England. He hoped, as the Noble Lord had read
the accusations against the landowners there, he would
read their vindication in the report. The Noble Lord
had contrasted the condition of the people of Dorset-
shire with those in Northumberland. He (Mr. Bankes)
acknowledged that in some parts of Dorsetshire their
dwellings were bad ; but the report stated that in many
parts of Northumberland they were still wore. The
advocates of the repeal of the corn-law sail the repeal
would not throw a single acre out of cultivation. lVell,
he thought differently ; and he thought, moreover, that
the condition of those labourers, who would be still em-
ployed in agriculture, would be much worse than it was
at present. In those weekly displays at Covent-garden
Theatre in which the Hon. Member for Manchester cut
such a figure, great stress had been laid upon the de-
clarations of Lord Ducie, who, it appeared, had beta
present at some of their meetings ; but he thought his
Lordship, however amiable and estimable his character
might be, entertained wrong opinions on this sub-
ject, and arrived at wrung conclusions.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought he might be termed rather a
'farmer among lords than a lord among farmers. Having
detained the House so long, he would not trespass fur-
ther on their patience ; nor would he have taken up so
much of their time had he not felt it necessary to rebut
those calumnious assertions which had been put forth
regarding the landowners in that part of the country
with which he was so intimately acquainted.
Mr. HUTT would be very brief. He would rapport
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhatuptun,
but not for the reasons with which he had recom-
mended it to the favourable consideration of the House.
He preferred the adoption of a low fixed duty to the
abolition of all duty on corn under present cicumstances.
A low fixed duty would not be paid for by the consumer,
but by the foreign exporter ; and if he erred in his
opinion, he erred in the company of most intelligent and
independent mcn. The Hon. Member concluded by
saying he would support the motion.
Mr. COBDEN then rose, and said—lt is not my in-
tention, Sir, to follow the example of the lion. Members
for Northamptonshire and Dursctshire, in making this a
question of the character or conduct of the Anti-Corn-
law League, for to any apprehension we are met here to
discuss the charscter of the corn-laws, and not that of
the Anti-Corn-law Leagtie.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," from both sides of the House.) If it were not so
very trite and familiar an anecdote, I would illustrate
the conduct of these Hon. Gentlemen by that of the bar-
rister who, in complaisance with the wish of the defen-
dant to abuse the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney,
lost his client's case.—(Laughter.) The corn-laws are
now on their trial, and there is only one way by which
they can be tried, and that is by their effects on the na-
tion at large.—(Hear, bear.) Whether the farmer or
the farmer's labourer is a little better or a little worse, or
whether the landlord is a little richer or a little poorer,
dues not, to my mind, form anything like the whole of
the question which we have to consider. Now, I never
heard but two arguments, on national grounds, in fan-our
of the corn-law. One is, that it is a part of a system of
protection. This is one ground upon which the corn-
law is defended. Is that a good ground of argument ?
The other national argument is, that without the corn-
laws you cannot meet the taxation or pay the interest on
the heavy debt which has been incurred. Now, with re-
gard to the argument that it is a part of a system of pro-
tsction of native industry in all its branches. Is it so ?
If it be so—if you can show rae that it does protect na-
tive industry, I will give up the corn-law. But have you
done so ? Can you protect the exporting manufacturer
Of this country ?—(hear, hear.) Ono Hon. Gentleman
has referred to the case of a person who is a candidate
for the office of President of America, who had inscribed
I on his banners the motto, " Protection to native indus-
try." Why, there is a party in America in precisely the
same situation as the manufactures here—l mean the
exporters of cotton. They r.ceive no protection from
those parties who affect the cry of " Protection to native
industry." There is precisely the same discord in Ame-
rica, and precisely the same kind of agitation as that.
in England. Everybody must recollect the course which
was taken by the South Carolinists when they threat-
ened to pass an Act of nullificatien. This is the case in
France. The wine-growers are the exporting producers,
and they require no system of protection for native in-
dustry. This is the secret which is at the bottom of the
opposition which now exists to the corn-law. How do
you suppose you will put that opposition down ? By
calling names ? No. Show me that the corn-law is a
just law, and we will dissolve the Anti- Corn-law League;
but, unless you can show that, do not deceive yourselves
by supposing that such displays as these which have
been indulged in to-night—such childish displays
I may call them—can ever effect the dissolu-
tion of the League. You talk of protection
to native industry in all its branches. Now, I
will bring that question home to you, and I will rs,lc
you to show me how you protect the labourer of the
country. I have told you before, and state it to you aga'n,
that you may depend upon it that these vague declara-
tions will not serve you in this House. I will have you
declare, and show, how you protect labour in this coun-
try. I will meet you on the poor-law question. I will
nut avoid that discussion although an attempt has been
made to as oid it by the Ministry. You shall not avoid
it. It shall be brought before the country ; and the
working classes of the country shall thoroughly under-
stand the gross imposture you put upon them. Now with
regard to the revenue. It is said that without a protec-
tive duty on corn we cannot pay the taxation of the
country, I heard a remark fall from art Hon. Gentle-
man sitting opposite to me, who spoke with as much
gravity as if he believed what he was saying was un-
answerable—that unless we maintained the corn• law we
could not pay the taxation of the country. Why if we are to
be taxed to pay the taxes of the corn-grower,who is to be
taxed to pay the taxes of the manufacturer ? I think it
has been shown that you cannot protect the manufac-
turer; and the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, with great
candour, admitted that he does not pay more for manu-
factures than the foreign merchant pays fur them, and
therefore there was no protection for the manufacturer
either in the home or in the foreign market. I heard an
Hon. Gentleman say that unless we have a high range of
prices it is impossible for us to meet the national
taxation. Does anybody suppose that the corn-laws
keep up anything but the price of corn? You would
have high prices, yet have you not admitted that manu-
factures are so'd cheaper here than in any other part of
the globe? And I want to know why you cannot pay
the taxes the same as the manufacturers? There is a
great and fundamental fallacy lying under this argument
—that protecting duties tend to the benefit of the
ceuntry. Protecting duties on corn, as has been ex-
plained by the Nolle Lord the Member for Sun-
derland tend to lower both wages and profits; and how
in the world, I ask, can it, therefore, tend to
enable the country to bear the taxat:qn? This is an
argument, let me remind you, which applies not merely
to the manufacturers as against the agriculturalists—
that is not the application of my argument. I contend-
that you are losing sight of the great body of the people
when you come to use this argument about protection.
I want to know how it will affect that great body of
people who are neither manufacturers, farmers, nor