The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-11 00:00:00

power, and who had perverted the institutions of this country
to serve their own selfish purposes.—( Loud cheers. ) Ile be-
lieved that they neither would nor ought to have any pease or
quiet in this country ago had maintained and passed this law,
until they could' either vindicate their policy, or abansloaed it._
(Cheers.) But their position at present was this—that th,y
neither could du the one nor would do the other. There w;:s
daTebtorehhmeeeorn;: al
argumentboalnlr)e,g,
yt
thtomtehmeganrtoatoininus
h‘tn:a,al,hilodnsitith;a:in:t.eiyhdene
tygeotisn
.ce-eroornysrft,oltrs
(,11,wae.ni,ii:1,,:ahrnai
91 everyb ).
no one single pnsition that they had assumed that they Isa•I
thPerets.
ext, and
ithering
speeches of the League.—( Cheers ) There is hardly a Suneay-
tnittehadei,n:i:nigliioctihhletarisvpetholawitci;O:f
danger of depending on foreign States for food, was used after
all ground for it had ceai.ed, for we were dependent, and must
be so in spite of the law; and as the danger has not happened
yet, they expect us to believe that, if foreign countries ex
ported more, and their interest became greater, remaining at
peace, it was then more likely to occur. But if they had -die&
eulty in.knowing what -would be done ip case the foreigners
should cut off our supply, there were persons in this country
whom they might consult, who were about ten million in num-
ber, and who, by their own showing, were without that. food
in peace, of which they feared they might be deprived in war.
So much for -the benefit to them of not dependinz on foreign
_countries ; but he believed that it was the want of reciprocity
in other States towards this country, on which they intended
chiefly to rely this year. Now, mark the good faith vsith
which this argument was used. It was implied, in the mono-
polist organs, that their party was ready for the repeal of the
corn- laws, if other nations would lower their tariffs, and ad-
mit our manufactures. Now, there was hardly a single State,
of whose tariff they complained, that did not, some years
since offer to negotiate with us, on the ground of
admitting our manufactures, if we would lower the
duties on corn ; and it was distinctly notified to , them
that such could never be admitted as the ground of
negotiation. He (Mr. Villiers) did en one occasion read in
the House of Commons the answer that Mr. Canning was
compelled to give to the Prussian Minister, who had made this
application to our Government ; and he there stated that
domestic policy precluded the corn-laws being the subject of
negotiation.—( A laugh.) Since that refusal to negotiate they
had reared up manufacturing interests, and followed our ex-
ample in attempting to protect them ; and, knowing that they
were wedded to that system, the monopolies of this country
were to be continued on the plea of their refusing reciprocity.
They should, doubtless, also hear of the necessity of maintain-
ing the corn-laws, for the sake of agriculture, in which such
great improvements were promised to be made ' • but if the
corn-laws encouraged agricultural improvement, how came it
that though the laws were passed is 1815, yet that in the year
of our Lord 1843, we collected from the landlords themselves
that agriculture had been greatly neglected, and, fcr the first
time, they were lecturing Their tenants on the bad treatment of
the land ? The fact was, that agriculture had been retarded,
and never would permanently improve while the law con-
tinued. In short, amongst all the things that had been said,
or that ho expected would be said, there was bat one that
seemed to consist with fact or sense, and that was urged, upon
occasion, by a county Member, in opposition to his (Mr.
Villiers') motion, and which was, that according to the ac-
count of the free traders, they (the landlords) must have a
very good thing of it—( Hear)—and if they had, did the meet-
ing suppose that the landlords would be so Felt as to surrender
it before the necessity fur it existed?—( Ilear, and laughter. )
And he liked that; it was plain, open, and intelligible, and
he preferred it much to the paltry plea that it was for the
sake of the poor that bread was to be made scarce in order
that it might be dear. It was not usual, perhaps, to make
such avowals in public, but it was very common in private.
Though it might not be very generous policy, he believed it
was very common practice—what was about as common as
human nature, where man was unrestrained by any public or
general influence. But this was the point he wished people
to observe, for it proved the importance and necessity of this
agitation, which sought to elicit such an expression of opinion
as would make these parties see that a necessity did
exist for surrendering that good thing which they had given
themselves, and that bad thing which they had imposed upon
everybody else ; and the real question worth considering was,
whether the League were pursuing a wise and judicious
course. With respect to this, after mature consideration, he
was bound to say that he believed that the chief men of the
League were acting as earnest and honest men, under the
circumstances, would do, and they adopted the course best
suited to their end. In all these movements it was necessary
that the object sought should be clear and definite, in order
to be intelligible, and to unite as much strength in its support
as possible. Now, the League denounced the corn-law as
unjust, and hoped to abolish it by producing that conviction
on the public mind ; and it sought the sympathy for this pur-
pose of the wise, and the just, and benevolent of all classes.
Could they expect assistance from these quarters in asking
for anything short of the entire removal of the injustice? And
arter showing the evil bearing of the law upon all classes to he
satisfied by simply varying the form of the injustice, and after
proving that it tended to make food scarce, tended to make it
dear, and tended further to deteriorate the value of labour in
the market, could they be satisfied by merely meeting the in-
convenience complained of by the merchant that he was de-
prived of a regular trash., and remedy the grievance of the far-
mer himself that the grain was roured into the market at the
. . .

time most injurious to himself? These were the effects, no
doubt, of the sliding scale, and would be removed by a
fixed duty ; but the argument against ti.e fixed duty
remained unanswered, that its only merit was to keep eut
food from this .country, which food would only be entered
frOm being Wanted ; and such a duty could be only imposed
—for the purpose of protecting the wealthy proprietor, hut which
protection, while it enhanced the price of food, did not extend
to increasing the wages of the labouring class.—( Hear, hear. )
This, he contended, was the fault of all protection, unjustly to
favour one class at the expense of the rest.— (Cheers ) Pro-
tectien could not be universal ; Parliament had repeatedly re-
fused to entertain the notion of regulating the income of the
labourers with the view of putting them on a footing with the
protected interest.—( Hear, hear.) Now, his Hon. Friend
Mr. Cobden put the Government to the test on the point.
Ile had raid, .4 You are raising the value of your own pro-
perty by Act of Parliament in passing and maintaining these
corn-laws, and in keeping up a high price for agricultural pro-
duce ; are you willing to give a value to labour by Act of Par-
liament also ?"—(Cheers. ) He smiled at this proposal know.
ing fulL.well that it wag impossible, and even had it been pcmi-
Me, it was, not Convenient fur themselves to do it. —( Hear, hear. )
iie (Mr. Villlet2s) remembered that when he was first returned
to I'arliament for the district which he now had the honour to
represent, he was rather under the impression that this law
was more injurious to capita'ists than it was to the working
men ; but he had since been strongly impressed with the con-
trary opinion from observing its operation ie that borough. The
working classes, when they met there to express an improve-
ment in their condition, did not express the idea by speak-
ing of higher wages, or employment, but they said they wanted
more trade, thus evidently intimating no connexion ie their
minds between increased trade and better wages.—( Hear,
hear.) Many of them received their orders direct from the
merchant, and they knew that if the merchant received no order
from abroad they failed to obtain employment. Restriction on
trade was therefore ruin to them, while every extension im-
proved their condition. They had therefore been impressed
from the moment that the corn-laws were passed, that as a
great obstruction to trade with Europe and America, they
had been tending to deteriorate their condition, rearing up
competitors abroad, diminishing the demand for their labour,
enhancing the price of food, while pressed further at home by
a constant increase in their numbers. But the view which
they take of the connexion between trade and their condition is
equally applicable to the whole working classes, for let the most
intelligent of them think front morning to night in what way he
could improve the material condition of his class, and he will
come to no other conclusion than that it must be by extending
the demand for his labour.—( Hear.) And as that would be
effected by increasing the trade in the products of his labour,
so every extension of trade with the rest of the world must tend
to improve his condition.--( Hear, hear.) The very purpose
of foreign trade created a demand for British labour. The
object for which we traded with foreign countries was to obtain
something that we wanted and did not produce. But no such
article could be imported into this country without an equivalent
being exported ; and no equivalent could be produced without
the employment, in some shape, of British labour. Thu. every
importinto this country appeared as a customer for British
labour.—(Cheers.) Every restriction on that import was the
denial to British labour of a customer ; and every restriction
removed, for the same reason, gave employment. It was not
consistent with the support of those restrictions to deny that
the imports would increase, because restrictive laws were
not imposed, because they would not come in, but because
they were expected. There was, perhaps, this peculiarity
in the import of food when it was demanded, that it not only
required to be paid for by British labour, but, inasmuch as it
would reduce the price of food, and as food was consumed by
the whole community, whatever was saved in the payment of
food was expended on manufactures, thereby creating a fresh
demand for manufacturing industry, while the artisan, with in.
creased demand for his labour, would be compelled to spend
less on food, and have more to expend upon comforts. No-
thing, therefore, was more likely to raise and improve the con-
dition of the working class in this country than eseend,ng the
trade in food with other countries and rendering it more ac-
cessible to him at home.—( Cheers.) Should any doubt the
justice of those views, he had only to reflect upon what oc=
curred during the late years of distress, and what had been lately
occurring. It was universally admitted that the prominent
cause of the distress between 1838 and 1842 was owing to the
high price of food, and the vast abstraction of the means of the
community that would otherwise have been expended on manu-
factures to be employed in the payment for food. In this coun-
try a great difference in the price of food was the difference of
many millions more or less expended upon it. Now, what
was it that we heard of at present ? Why, that trade Was
reviving--that the home trade was improved, which is the
precise confirmation of what he had said, since theprice of food
was very fallen within these two years. More had been spent
on manufactures, more employment was given to the people,
and they had more to spend taxed for revenue, which results
in what they knew was the ease that trade was reviving, and
that the revenue had improved. But precisely for the same
reason was it to he expected. that if food should again rise, and
these laws continue, and the supply from abroad should again
be irregular, the same consequences would again follow.—
( Hear.) He said, then, of what immense importance was this
question to every class of the community, and especially if we
consider the amount of misery yet existing in this country, and
-the shocking details of distress and destitution that are daily
reaching us from the metropolis, and how every business was
overstocked; and, when he considered that all the business of
this country depended upon the extent of the production,
distribution, and consumption of the articles of human want,
was it not insane on our part to choke up any channel of com-
merce that we could open, or not widen to the fullest extent
the field of exchange. which was the soul and spirit of com-
mercial operations? Why, then, he would ask, should they not
at once claim the adoption of this better policy, and insist at
once upon freedom of trade? Some said that their opponents
were so strong, that it would be wise to moderate the demand.
He said, too, that they were strong, but strong in relation to
the apathy and fears of others. T were not strong in num-
ber, they were not strong in justice-Very loud cheers)—they
were not strong in the love and affections of the people, but
they were bold because other men were cowards—(Loud
cheers)—ever fearing to go forth lest this lion should cross
their path.—( Great applause.) But it is said by others that
it is not on their account they fear, but en account of
those who had been deluded by the promises of monopoly,
and who had embarked their capital upon its faith,
and who had since been disappointed. But he said
that rendered the case !stronger for change. Had his ea-