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

manufacturers of this country. Regardless of my other
consideration, however, they adhered to rent—rent.—
(Cheers.) The objet of every change of the corn-law
was to keep up rents.—(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh !)
Gentlemen might laugh and cheer, but this was not the
language of the League alone, it was the language of the
wisest statesmen, the greatest poets, and the first phi-
losophers of the time. A poet, the first of modern time,
who was himself a I ird and a landlord, expressed the
shme opinion in these words:—
" Tho last t..) hd the cry of we dare cease,
The first to mike a malady of peace;
For what were all these cou-atry patriots born ?
To hula', and vote, and rare the price of corn."
(Cheers.) That- was the language of one of the most
eminent poets of this country, and he (Mr G.) would
tell the House what the noble poet said of the conduct
of the landed proprietors:—
" Safe in their barn, the Sabine tillers sent
Their brethren out to battle. Why?—for rent !
They roared, they dined, they drank, they swore they,

meant
To die for England. Why then live?—For rent!
The peace has made one general malcontent
Of this " high market patriot"—WAß rat RENT—
Their love of country—millions all mis-spent.
How reconciled ? —by reconciling rent.

And will they not repay the trz,,a;.nres lent ?
No ; down with everything—but up with rent.
Their good, ill, hea►th, wealth, joy, and discontent,
Being, end, aim, religion—Rent, rent, rent."
—(Great cheering.) But the noble poet did not except
the Church itself from its share of participation of mono-
poly in the corn-lavi s. He said:—
"So "Mother Church' while all reFgion writhes.
Like Niobe, w,eps o'er her offspring—Trrn ES."
—(Cheers and 1 itighte-.) Ile knew that many excel-
lent men thought the corn-laws were necessary, and he
quoted those lines only to show that one of the landlords'
own class was convinced of the evils of those laws; and
he believed that the time was coming when the whole
community wou7d raise its voice against them. It had
been said that manufacture; were protected ; belt the
manufacturers, in their petitions, had called for the
abolition o 7 protection of every hind. The landlords,
however, did not stand upon the same grounds with re-
spect to protection as other interests in the community.
Protection did not increase the wages of labour or raise
the rate of profits; the unlimited competition prevented
that. But the landed aristocracy had all the benefit of
their protection to themselves from the liinited nature
of their monopoly. It had been said that the
trade of the country was very great—that
our export of manufactures had largely in-
creased. But the manufacturers complained that these
laws deprived them of a trade which they might now
enjoy ; and the question botweon them and the land-
lords was, whether the latter had a right to deprive
them of that trade. The Noble Lord, the Member for
North Lancashire, hail presented a petition in favour of
agricultural protection, s'gned by 16,000 persons, who
were represented to be manufacturers. Now, he would
ask the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) were
.one half of
them manufacturers ?
Lord STANLEY—Those from Preston and Blackburn
were.

..........
Mr. M. GIBSON—But those Fran 1 Preston and 13lack- '
burn did not amount to one half.— (Hear, hear.) But
the petitioners did not state what amount of protection
they asked for. They did not say the fixed duty, or the
rising. and descending scale, or what other scale. As the
Noble Lord was the representative of a manufacturing
county, he wished to ask the Noble Lord, would he un-
dertake to rise in that House, and say that the corn-
laws conferred a benefit upon his cc nstituents ?
Lord STANLEY said he thought so. He was sup-
porting the the manufacturing interests still.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished the Noble Lord to give the
grounds on which he thought so.—(Cheers and laughter.)
rhey might laugh if they pleased, but the Noble Lord
did state the grounds once, and what were those
grounds ? Why, that they might be enabled to keep
grooms and gardeners.—(Cheers.) They had heard ex-
tremely little, considering the position the Noble Lord
' held in that House, upon the subject of manufaetures.
It was true, that he did once threaten the agriculturist
by the vision of Tamboff, but he had never satisfied
the manufacturers that the keeping out of corn was for
' their benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that they were
treating this question in a way that amounted to little
short of insult. Whenever gentlemen got up they never
came to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
and the gentlemen on these benches—(Great laughter
from the Ministerial side of the House, in coneequence
of the bench on which the Opposition leaders sit being
entirely empty)—the Noble Lord and those who sit' on
these benches were not responsible for the law. Those
who set on the other side of the House were responsible,
became they could alter the law. The Right lion.
Baronet was their ruler—he was their Minister, because
they could not get a leader out of the Central Pro'ec-
tion Society. The Right Hon. Baronet would not tell
them that he would keep up protection permanently. He
would tell them that the League was right in principle.
—(Laughter.) It might be all very well for gentlemen
to laugh and sneer, but ho was dealing with facts as
they were. The gentlemen opposite were responsible
for the corn-law. They brought it in, and they kept it
up, and, doing so, they ought to tell him what good they
had done for the people by keeping up the law. The
right of the people was to freedom of industry. Those
who sat on the other side of the House kept it from
them, and be. therefore, on the part of the people, had a
right to call for a satisfactory explanation.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BANKS then rose to address the house. He
could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
that they, on that side of the House, were most willing
to hear all the llon. Member for Manchester had to
state, and it was only in consequence of the Opposition
bench being empty, that the laughter had taken place.
He agreed with the Hon. Members for Manchester and
Sheffield that it was desirable to keep as close to the
question as possible. If, however, any tile had departed
from it, it was the Opposition rather than the Ministe-
rial. During the present session of Parliament number-
less petitions had been presented from agriculturists,
complaining of the interference of the League. The ac-
'count which they had had that night of the proceedings
of the League was a summary of its life—it had existed
six years, and he trusted that it would nut live six
months longer. lie had read many of the papers of the
League, but he was not aware *until that night that
it owed its origin to the Honourable Member for
Bolton (Dr. Bowring), and he trusted the Honourable
Gentleman would live to write its epitaph.—(Laughter.)
There had been in the course of the present debate
some questions addressed to him which would have
'rendered it fit that he should have offered some observa-
tions to the House, even if he a ere indisposed to do so.
It had been asked of him and others, why they had taken ,
part in the Factory Bill, and how they could reconcile
it to themselves to venture to interfere with the grand
manufacturers unless they were disposed to show the
same feeling towards tl-e lower classes ; for his own
part, l‘e was sure that had he felt that the in-
terference would have affected one class and not
another, he would not have consented to it. Ile met,
in the strongest terms, deny the statements of the Hon.
Member for Manchester, that they desired to ma'n-
lain those laws for the purpose of crushing the
manufacturers. He was surprised that the Hon. Member
could for a moment have conceived that, in the vote on the
Factory Bill, ho fixed upon one portion of his fellow
subjects and not upon another. Those who desired to
keep up protection to agriculture had no such wish or
object in view, and there was no such wish on the part
of those who had voted in favour of the factory question.
It had been asked whether those who voted were ready
to get up in that House and state why they had done
so ; he for one was ready to accept:the challenge. In
the vote he had given he was not guided by the state-
ments which he had road in newspapers or pamphlets—
he saw the men themseh'es, and it was not until after
many interviews with them that he ventured to give that
vote. If he was travelling from the question it was not
his fault, because he had been taunted to give his opinion
on the subject, which he was ready to do, and a'so to
defend the conduct ho had hitherto pursued.
Tho Honourable Member for WolverhatnptOn, who
had brought forward this motion, had adopted a different
tone to that which he usually did.. Differing as he (Mr,
Banks) did from that line of arguments adopted by the
Hon. Member, yet still they had been conducted in such
a gentlemanly manner, hitherto they had been expresed
in such a proper tone and feeling that he could not but
think them worthy of attention ; but upon the pr,:sent
occasion he had come forth in a new character. The
speech was delivered in an almost uninterrupted tone of
defiance. He had asked whether they dared do this and
they dared do that ? That might be all very well in
another place—(Cheers)—that might do all very well in
Covent-garden, It did so the other night, because there
when an individual said " he dare" two policemen in-
stantly took him out. In that I louse, however, it should
be remembered, they had no policemen, " I (exclaimed
the Hon. Meinter) dare" tell the lion. Member for
Wolverhampt,n that I desire to maintain protection
fer the good of the tenant•farmer, and the whole popu-
lation.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " the landords.") Yes,
and the landlords. Nobody who argued this quesi n
• omitted landlords.—(A laugh.) But there was one
•, class that was omittee, and that was the tenant-farmers.
110,12 individuals had come forward in a body and re-
pudiated the docnrines of the Moeda rs for Stocleport and
Bolton. Ile hoped there were some tenant-farmers in
the House last n•gl t to hear the speech of the Noble
Lord the Member for Sunderland. What said that
Noble Lord? Why did they not do in this country as
in Canada ? There there were no tenant-farmers, there
was only the landlord and the labourer. But it must be
I remembered that that country was in a very different
state to this; and here they ought to legislate for the whole
—the tenant farmers as wed as the labourers. The
move that had been made on the part of the tenant-
farmers
was spontaneous, and was not encouraged by any 11
landlord ; but the)' were pleased to see that they were il
' persons who would attend to their own interests. On 1
' his part there had been nothing to encourage them to rise '
I as men against ng s
the bullying -y stem of the Anti•Corn-
law League. They had risen
as -ora
one man, and he be
lieved they would idtimately put it down. The lion.
Memher for Manchester (Mr. Mark Philips) had I
asked him a question with respect to cotton. I
! The lion. Member had asked him what greater advan- j
I tape it was to the manufacturer to have him for a cus-
tomer, than to have as a customer an American residing
in New York. lie had asked if he supposed that he
(Mr. Bankes) would have to pay him more for his
cotton geode than his American customer. Why, if the
manufacturer were an honest man, he certsinly should
! not have to pay more, but the manufactur,r would have
this advantage in dealing with him—that as a home- I
1 customer he could be more certainly relied on.-__(A
laugh.) Why, certainly, the home customer might be
more certainly relied on.—(llear and laughter.) 'There
I might be a change in the American tariff, which might
1 altogether prevent the sale of our manufactures in that
country. Why, one of the persons who was at present
a candidate for the Presidential chair of that empire,
he supposed he might cell it, went about; with banners
inscribed, " Protection to native industry."—(Hear,
bear.) Now, suppose they should place a prohibitory