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

said no one could be found boll enough to controvert,
that there was invar;ably discontent in the agricultural
distri,ts whyu the pricy of bread was high, and content
when the oric of bread was low. He would not wder-
ta!;.e to say that he r--2garded a high price of bread as
go,7)(l.—(Oppositirin chef Ts.) He adinitt,A that a high
price of bread was a misfortune; but the Hon. Gentle-
man had dared any one to deny the accuracy of the
a ,:ortion which he had made. Now, in the years 1834,
1840, and 1841, there was no incendiarism; while in
the years 1843 and 1844, when the price of bread was
moderate and low in comparison with the former years,
there was incendiarism. Therefore the Hon. Gentleman
who had challenged them to produce an instance of dis-
content among the agricultural labourers when bread
was at a low price, and of content when it was at a high
price, need not go further than the last three
years to see the fallacy of his assertion. The
Honourable Gentleman said that this discontent
and incendiarism was occasioned by want of em-
ployment. Now, he would ask the Hon. Gentleman
not if lie had not encouraged this feeling—he did not
insinuate for a moment that ho had done so—it would
be an insult to ask the question—but he would ask him
if he did not think it possible that this persevering and
sedulous agitation, which he had carried on, no doubt,
because he thought it calculated to produce great public
advantage—if that agitation might not have suggested
to the landlords the idea that their interests were not
quite safe, and might not have produced a pernicious
effect by inducing them to withhold the application of
their capital to the cultivation of the soil, which would
not have been withheld if their confidence had not been
shaken by this agitation—(Hear, hear)—and. if the
withholding of this capital had not occasioned a want of
employment among the agricultural labourers, and so
led to these incendiary fires ?—(Cheers.) If so, he called
udon the Hon. Gentleman to recognise with him the
soundness and the widom, so long as Parliament
determined to maintain those corn-laws, of
disregarding that agitation of which he was
the leader in that House, and of setting their faces
_ _

firmly against motions such as that which had been sub-
mitted to them by the Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers.) The
Hon. Gentleman had referred to an argument which he
had used on a former occasion, and had stated that he
(Mr. Gladstone) had urged the displacement of rural
labour as an objection to the repeal of the corn-laws.
Now, the Hon. Gentleman had answered that objection,
as if he had contended that the corn-laws would displace
labour only by throwing land out of cultivation, and had
stated that he was at a loss to conceive how it could go
out of cultivation, although it might be incapable of pro-
ducing rent. The Hon. Gentleman had professed
to be sceptical as to the possibility of such a state of
things arising as any land being thrown out of cultiva-
tion as long as it could be cultivated by anybody on their
own account. But that did not affect his (Mr. Glad-
stone's) argument. His argument was, that granting
that there would be a great increase in the trade in the
manufacturing productions of the country, consequent
upon a repeal of the corn-laws, yet still the increased
demand for foreign corn could not but be followed
by the infliction of injury to the agricultural labourer.
Might it not be possible that this state of things would
arise: that a great quantity of land now employed as
arable land, might be laid clown as pasture land—a
method of cultivation which would be most profitable to
the landlord, but wou d be most distressing to the
labourer.—(Hear, hear.) Such a mode of cultivation
would not lower the rent of the land, in fact it would
be highly profitable to the landlord, and to the farmer,
who would get a good price for the butter, cheese, and
meat which would be produced from pasture land, while
the demand for rural labour woul I be greatly dimin-
ished, and thus the agricultural labourer would suffer
greatly, while the landlord would not suffer at all. The.
Hon Gentleman had stated that if the repeal of the
corn-laws, by increasing the supply of corn, would dis-
place agricultural labour, every improvement in agricul-
ture might be opposed for the same reason. Now, even if
he were disposed to admit that improved methods of cul-
tivation, by increasing produce, would displace rural
labour, yet that diminution of the demand for rural
labour would be gradual. It would not come with that
rapidity and suddenness which must be the result of any
such proposition as that contained in the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman. But he demurred to the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman upon that point. Certain agri-
cultural improvements must lead to a diminution of the
demand for rural labour ; but in most cases agricultural
improvements would lead to a general increase of that
demand. If they looked to the improvement consequent
upon the general inclosing of waste lands, or upon the
establishment of an extensive system of drainage, the
Hon. Gentleman could hardly deny but that those im-
provements, so far from leading to a diminution, would
give a stimulus to the demand for rural labour, and would
raise wages more perhaps than any other means that
could be devised. It was doubtless true that every agri-
cultural improvement would diminish the demand for
labour. Everything that tended to diminish the quan-
tity of labour necessary to rase one quarter of wheat,
would diminish the demand for labour so far as that
quarter of wheat was concerned ; but if by the introduc-
tion of improvements the produce of the land could be
increased by many quarters of wheat, the demand for
rural labour, as a whole, would be proportionably in-
ereased,—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentle-
man had said, that thosehwho had originally proposed the
law had intended to produce scarcity. Now he repu-
diated that charge.—(Hear, hear.) It was not for him
to say whether the expectations of those who had framed
the law of 1815 had been realised or not, the Parliament
of 1844 was not called upon to pass
,judgment on that
subject—they might' ave been right, or they might have
been wrong. Lord Grenville, and those who acted with
him, might have greater credit given to them by the
Hon. Member for sagacity than the framers of the law.
But it was only doing justice to his Noble Friend (Lord
Ripon) who had originally proposed that law, to say
that the reason which he had given for its proposal was
that by giving encouragement to domestic agriculture
we should insure a more certain and abundant supply of
corn than by any other means. He did not expect that
the Hon. Gentleman would concur in that argument, but
it was but just to the original proposers of that
law to state that such was the argument which

they hsd used, and it was not right to as-
cribe to them motives so offensive in the public
mind as those which ascribed to them the intention of
producing scarcity. The Hon. Gentleman said that the
corn-laws limited the quantity of food ; and, conse-
quently, produced scarcity and disease. He would not
go into the abstract proposition. He would not ask the
House to consider what would be the effect of the repeal
of the corn-laws upon those classes who depended upon
agricultural labour for their maintainence. It might be
true that the law which imposed a tax upon the importa-
tion of any commodity limited its consumption
That was a question on which he was not then called
upon to enter. The Hon. Gentleman had made a speech
which was opposed to the whole protective system.—
(Opposition cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman could hardly
expect him to go into the argument as to the grounds
on which the protective system had originally been
adopted; and what encouragement did the Hon. Gentle-
man hold out to those who might be inclined to modify
that system? None whatever. He would accept of no
measure short of total repeal.—(Opposition cheers.)
The Hon. Gentleman did not argue that the corn-laws
afforded too much protection, or that they afforded pro-
tection to the agricultural interest different from that
which was afforded to every other interest ; and it was
competent for him to contend, in opposition to the Hon.
Gentleman, that as the principle of protection was ac-
knowledged by our law, it was only a practical exem-
plification of that law, to give protection to the agricul•
tural interest. He objected to this motion, be-
cause a confidence in the stability of a law
was of the utmost importance.—(Cheers.) The
Noble Lord cheered that. If confidence in the sta-
bility of a law was to be undermined by agitation, what
hope was there that he would restore confidence by a
fixed duty?—(Cheers.) It was clear the Noble Inrd
would find himself in the same position as the defenders
of the present lax, for the arguments of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wolverhampton would equally apply to his pro-
position.
The sense of Parliament had been already pro-
nounced with regard to the present corn-law, and he
trusted they would give the law that stability which
arose from the exhibition, on their part, of giving a fair
trial to a law of which they had not as yet a comprehen-
sive experience ; but all the experience they had of it
realised the most sanguine expectations that had been
forme4 of it.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Wolverhampton and himself were both for
stability. But the Hon. Gentleman would deprive at one
blow the landlords and farmers of the protection which
they had for centuries, and he referred to a statement
made ay him (Mr. Gladstone), that when a commercial
change was to be made, the more rapidly it was done the
better. But the Hon. Gentleman begged the question in
supposing they were going to make any change. In 1842
Parliament had bestowed a great portion of the public
time in discussing the principle and the particulars of the
corn-laws. He believed eighteen nights of that session
had been passed in discussing the corn-laws. They could
not renew that every year.—(Hear. hear.) It was im-
possible they could do so, and if Parliament consented
to keep a question of such magnitude in perpetual
agitation, it would not only be injurious to those whose
interests were more immediately concerned, but to the
character of Parliament itself. He claimed something
like stability for the decisions of Parliament.—(" Hear,
hear," from Lord Howick) The Noble Lord was
quicker than he (Mr. Gladstone) was, and he attached
meanings to his words which he never intended they
should bear. But if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were
willing to accede to that proposition, he called on them
to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member forWol-
verhampton.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman made no
charge against the present corn-law—his arguments were
directed against protection of every kind, and he called
on them to abolish protection to agriculture as they
abolished
tion. T
protectionhety et. a
todhwool.He denied that wool had
penny a pound on wool
operated as a tax on British produce. It depressed the
price of British wool by discouraging the consumption of
articles with which British wool was mixed. Then in-
stead of abolishing all protection, they awarded protec-
tion that very year to the growers of coffee and sugar.—
(Ironical cheers.) He had observed a marked distinc-
tion between the speech of the Hon. Gentleman that
night and his speeches on former occasions. The pre-
sent law had now been in operation two years, and they were
years by no means favourable to the working of the law,
for in the beginning of 1842 the prospect of the harvest
was very bad, and it turned out to be an abundant one ;
objections had the
to law
and, on the contrary, the first five months onths ofl3th4e3 gave
the highest prospect of an abundant crop, but
H
Ivveosrtkfeedl 1
?s h o rot
noef what
thewa s
ge was
d .
old law was that it occasioned rapid flactuatiens
in price. Now no person could say that
law
in
those two years, daring which the present
was in operation there ad been any unsteadiness of
price, and during the present year, in which there was
no great change expected, the price of corn had been re-
markably steady.—(Hear, hear.) The averages kept
moving from week to week in scarcely a perceptible de-
Ilis Right Ron. Friend; had stated of hint that