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

had not yet decided on what shape the Bill was to as-
sume, or the provisions it was to contain.
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY. in withdrawing his motion
for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act
6 and 7 Will. IV, c. 77, as relates to the union of the
sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, said, he must ask the
Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to
state more explicitly than he had yet done what
his intentions were with regard to this measure.
On the present occaion, he did not intend to go into
the question ; but as there was an opinion out of doors
that the consent of her Majesty would be required be-
fore any further progress could be made, he begged to
ask whether, .if that consent
.should be required, it
would be withheld by the Government.
Sir R. PEEL said, that if the Hon. Gentleman
had brought forward his motion, he vvo,ild have felt it
his duty to oppose it. The question, whether or not the
consent of the Crown was necessary, was One involving
many complicated considerations; and he did not under-
take to say whether, if it were declared to be necessary in
the present instance, it would be given by the Government.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said that, though it might be
necessary to renew the motion at a future period, he
should, for the present, withdraw it.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. C. VILLIERS then rose to move that this House
do resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of
considering the following resolutions :—"That it appears
by a recent census that the people of this country, are
rapidly increasing in number. That it is in evidence
before this House that a large proportion of her Majesty's
subjects are insufficiently provided with the first neces-
saries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law is in force,
which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens
its abundance That any restriction, having for its
object to impede the fr-?e purchase of an article upon
which depends the subsistence of the community, is in-
defensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought
to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the
Act 5 and 6 Victoria e. 14, shall be repealed
forthwith." The Honourable Member said the
purpose of the motion of which he had given notice was,
that of once again bringing under the consideration of
that House the claim, so just, so important in itself, made
on the part of the community at large, that the trade in
the first necessary of life, now restricted by the Act of
that House, should be in future unfettered and wholly
free. He could most truly say that such was the
importance which he attached to this claim, that if he
for one moment imagined that the power with which it
was presented to the House could in any way affect its
success, nothing would have induced him again tO become
the instrument of making the motion on this occasion.
However, this was notoriously not the case. He
had upon two occasions brought this matter before
the House, and he bad been supported by Members
of the greatest ability, who had left nothing unsaid that
could be urged in its favour, and yet this had been done
in vain. It might, perhaps, he asked, upon what grounds,
therefore, he now proceeded to renew this appeal.
He thought he might take credit for not having
adopted this course without due consideration.
If those who were united with him in opinion
on that sutjeet, had been silent upon it during
this session, their opponents would not have been slow
to infer that either by their overwhelming influence, or
their persuasive elegise:nee, they had been induced to fly
from the field—that they were satisfied with the former
decision of that House. A notion more foreign to the
truth could not be imagined by anybody. But
he thought the public were likely also to have
concurred in this view if they had remained silent, con-
sidering the novel attitude which country gentleman had
assumed on this question during the past year. Those
gentlemen had considered it expedient, for the purpose
of maintaining this law, or of conciliating public opinion,
to descend into the field of public agitation, and they
had followed closely in the track of that body who
were leagued together in opposition to them. It would
have appeared somewhat remarkable, considering the
appeal which had been made, if there had been no dis-
cussion in that House. Their meetings appeared to have
been somewhat select, and they seemed rather to have
agitated themselves than to have succeeded in awakening
much sympathy for their cause. But inasmuch as their
professions appeared so large in print, and as there had
been no lack of confidence on the other side, it would
have been somewhat curious if, when the parties had
met on common ground, there had been no opportunity
of fair argument in that House. The public expected
an opportunity of judging fairly between the contending
parties. He saw little reason for despair, and some
for hope, in this continued discussion on this question.
He was unable to explain, unless from a conviction of
the substantial justice of the anti-corn-law cause, why
the Government had not allowed any month of last
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 upon which
it was placed when first introduced was the :nest 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 fir the bread
itself.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") That was the ; lan
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 had 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 ite—(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 agriculturalr
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 a as. 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 b.'en, 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 corn lards. 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 ho had been deluded and deceived. As to the
exemptions that had been procured for the farmer in
t4e inayment .
House of
Ir
o did io
there wasit
know k
nota land-
lordtat
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 hips
whether what they had done in that House as they said
for him had been at all to Lis benefit. Whateverrelief
they had procured for the farmer through Parliament,
only swelled the rent of the landowner.—(Hear, hear.)
The farmers held their land not for thein-
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 of civilisation 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
distresss.: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 .:f 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 asserteJ? 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 had 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 Suffo:k, there property was safe; -,vherevcr, in filet, the
corn-law was virtually repealed, there property was
safe. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferranti) who, he un-
derstood was going to move an amendment to his resolu-
tion, meant to prove, probably, that the high price of
food was a benefit to the people. He 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-
s Ner 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—(Otn oh, and Hear, bear)—to re-
ply to that statement.—(Cheers.) He would read the
Hon. Geroleman a letter.

Mr. FERRAN D—And I will read you another.
Mr. VILLIERS would read a letter from a magistrate
of an agricultural county, Buckinghamshire, alio was no
supporter of his (Mr. ViMete') views, nor a member of
the Anti-Corn-law League. What was the 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
pin the condition of the labourers, their clamp, un-
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 potato- s to share, that such families
were kept alive unt 1 they could obtain a ticket of ad-
mission to the workhouse.)
Mr. FERRA ND—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 aft( r
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 be
done so, that would have implied some knowledge of agri-
cultural Subjects ; and, as well as he recolected, the agri-
tural knowledge of the Bight Hon. Gentleman aas 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 Ssinisterial
benches.) He stood corrected. The expression was,
" that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not distinguish
an ox from a donkey."—(Reneaed laughter, and Opposi-
tion cheers.) The Right lion. Gen:le:nun 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. Gen:les/earl had giver iin
data—he had merely jumped to a conclusion—hut in
order to come to that conclusion, it was necessary to go
through a certain series of operations. He did not tell
thein the price at which labour would be displaced. He
supposed that labour could (tidy be displaced by land
hem thrown out of cultivation. He had not
stated the price which would mutter euhivation so
unprofitable as to throw land out of cultivation.
He had given them tic) data whatever on the
subject.. He could not understated bye hat means laud
was to be thrown out of cultivation. It wee a delusion
to suppise that if a little spirit,. a little sc'ence, and a
little economy, were exhibited in the cultiva,ion of the
land, that cultivation cetilcl not be mate profitable. If
the Right Hun. Gentleman had paid a little attention to
the expenments of Earl Ducie on the subject, he would
bare seen his error. That Noble Lord had stated it as
the result 'if his experiments that the apprehension that
the importation of corn from foreign countries would
throw land out of cultivatioe, was uncounded, b cause he
found that by car&ully cultivating land himself without
paying rent, lie could produce corn at a lower price than
it could he produced in foieign countries. Of course
rent made a difference.—(Derisive laughter from the
Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Oppesition.)
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-
Veman, 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 Hon. 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.) He 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-
courateed, and the demand for labour increased. The
agricultural labourer, es en 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 rurardistricts.
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 lied 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 •vtere 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 ainsitted 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 hal 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
declared in his place
m
this law was about being imposed,
in the House of Lords that nothing could justify the
in tampering with the subsistence of the people but the
must 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