The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

the expense of the rest of the community. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Roxburghshire said he was the poor man's friend. So
were they who supported the motion; it was to affect the poor
man's food that they were making exertions. He
thought that the prosperity of the manufacturing and
agricultural interest ought to go hand in hand
and he was convinced, that what injured the one was detri-
mental to the other, for the removal of restrictions 'rom trade
had always a tendency—always enriched—the best customer of
the agriculturist. He concurred with the Hon. A ember for
Stockport, that rents would not be materially decreased by the
operation of free trade. However, they ought to have the
Committee and investigate the truth, and if, after a careful in-
vestigation, they saw protection was necessarily just, and cal.
culated to promote the general welfare of the community, then
let protection be adopted ; but if it should be shown to be un-
just, impolitic, and calculated to injure a great portion of the
community, then let it be done away with. They only asked
for justice,_ and he trusted the country would ultimately in-
duce the House to give that justice to the country.
Colonel WOOD said that if the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down had, instead of confining his returns of the
population to that of twenty-three counties, extended them to
the United Kingdem, he would have found that instead of the
proportions which he had detailed to the House of the agricul-
tural to other classes of the population, the proportion of the
former to the manufacturing classes was as two to one, and he
(Colonel Wood) was satisfied that they contributed to the ex-
penses of :the Government at least in proportion of two to one
as compared with the manufacturing classes. He deprecated
agitation on the one side and the other, and he wished he could
see an end of all associations. When the Hon. Member for
Stockport said that the expenses of cultivating 400 acres was
790/., and that the rent was 8001., he must be very little
acquainted indeed with agricultural matters to have believed
such a statement. He should like to know whether that was
the statement of a man farming his own land, or of a tenant-
farmer.
Mr. BROTHERTON explained that he had not included
the great manufacturing counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire
in his statement.
After a few words from the Earl of SHELBURNE,
Colonel SIBTHORP said that the Hon. Member for Stock-
port was included in the list of stewards who were to officiate
at a certain banquet that night with their white wands.
(Laughter.) And if he (Col. Sibthorp) were honoured with
such an office at any assembly he would have thought it his duty
not to be absent. Under the circumstance he (Col. Sibthorp)
did not expect such a motion to be brought forward,
He trusted the Hen. Member was not ashamed to be present ;
for his own part he would say with Sir John Falstaff, " I would
not march through Coventry with them."—( Laughter. ) As
for the Association to which the Hon. Member belonged he
knew not in what terms to speak of it. The language in the
organ of that Association, he meant, The Anti- Corn-law Cir-
cular, was past endurance. The usual epithets applied by that
journal to the supporters of the agricultural interest were " re-
lentless demons, ' " heartless fiends," " inhuman, merciless,
foot-pads"—(Laughter)—and such like. But the farmers and
labourers of England held the party in as much contempt as he
in his capacity of an humble Member of that House did. He
was sorry to say that, much as the agriculturists might be in
favour of a conciliatory course, a different feeling seemed to
pervade the manufacturers.
Mr. VILLIERS said that the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Lincoln had alluded to the formation of certain societies
within the last few yeari, and had said that some of those
societies were formed in self defence for the protection of
British agriculture. Now he (Mr. Villiers) thought that the
world must be astonished to perceive no sign of the practical
utility of those societies in anv of the numerous counties in
which they had been formed, and also to find that the
Honourable Members for Dorset, Wiltshire, and those counties
most prominent for meetings, and at which strong language
was used, and ardent professions of interest in the condition of
the labourer and the tenant-farmer, had shown themselves per-
fect mutes,eand never came forward to express their opinions
or make up their minds. When any one of those rose to ex-
press their opinions upon this question, the whole gist of their
discourse was simply nothing more than an expression of dis-
trust and discontent of her Majesty's present Ministers.—
( Cries of " No, no," front the Ministerial benches, answered
by " Hear, hear," and cheers from the Opposition.) Hon.
Gentlemen cried "No, no," but why did they call upon the
Government to go back to its allegiance, and to remember
from-whom therderivedther power? He approved of the mode
in which his Hon. Friend brought forward the motion. He
(Mr. V.) had made a motion of a similar tendency upon
the subject of the corn-laws for many years, and the reasons
assigned by Hon. Members in that House for refusing a
Committee was, that they thought the present law
tended to serve the tenant-farmers and labourers. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade had said
that it was invidious to seek an inquiry into the stile of the
tenant but not of the landlord. But he (Mr. Villiers) asserted
that it was net a landowner's question. In another place a
Noble Duke, who was styled the farmer's friend—(Cries of
" Order, older," from the Tory benches. ) He was in order.
That Noble Duke had asserted that the landowners
had not the slightest interest in this pestion,
and that it only affected the tenant-farmers,
What v‘e.e protective duties? Nothing more than impedi-
ments to commerce, making scarce the articles of food and general
consmnption. They did not attempt to deny that these duties
were injurious to commerce and manufactures. He remem-
bered an Hon. Gentleman some years ago saying that this was
a question of great national policy,' and he (,Ur. Vilifiers) said,
in reply, that they were bound to shim some evidence of good
from such a great national evil. He therefore asserted that his
Hon. Friend was perfectly justified in seeking for this inquiry.
His object was to give lion. Gentlemen opposite an opportnin, y

waive prosperity and ahundance.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
By leaving the question in doubt they were preventing the
application to the land of that skill and capital which were ne-
cessary for the security of rent, and by thus repressing enter-
prise they (the landlords) were in reality injuring themselves.
—(Hear.) When it was said by Hon. Gentlemen opposite
that free trade produced insecurity, and when they described it
as something horrible and frightful to contemplate, he would
ask them to look back for the last 15 or 20 years of the com-
mercial history of the country, and to point out any instance
in which measures of relief, or approximation to the free trade
principle, had not materially tended to produce wealth and con-
fidence.—( Hear, hear. He would put the question at issue
on that point alone, and he would abandon the argument if
they could show him a single instanee in which an alteration
in favour of the free trade principle diminished wealth or les-
sened the confidence of the classes more immediately affected
by it _( Hear) No doubt all alterations produced at the time
some extent of mischief, but the evil was to be laid at the door
of those who built up a house on a false foundation, on which
it was impossible that it could have stood, and not to those who
witnessed the fall. The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract
from Cobbett's Weekly Register, stating that the corn-laws
wore prejudicial to the farmers and agricultural labourers, and
pointing out the cor.aequences of admitting foreign corn into
the country. He then continued to say that it was impossible
that a sufficient supply of corn could be produced in this
country for all the manufacturing classes, and that when they
were thus unable to give them a sufficient supply of bread, they
ought not to prevent themfrom manufacturing goods for those
who would give them food in return. He considered that
corn ought to be regarded as being as much a portion of Bri-
tish trade as any branch of their manufactures. In various
years when foreign corn was admitted they found no conse-
quent distress attend the agricultural labourers, but directly
the reverse.—( Hear.) He then read a passage from a pa-
per written by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the
Board of Trade, describing the necessity of having the manu-
facturers placed in a position to compete with the markets of
the world, and then continued to say that he did not think they
should have a Minister of the Crown putting forward such
statements for his private interests out of that Mouse, and pur-
suing the course which they had witnessed that evening as a
Member of the Government.—( Hear.) They had no right to
increase trade at the expense of the manufacturers, as they
had witnesses in many instances in the tariff of last year, while
they, at the same time, refused to allow them the proper oppor-
tunities of procuring food in return for their goods. He was
certain the speech of his Hoe. Friend, the Member for Stock-
port, would produce a very great effect upon the country, and
he could tell Gentlemen in the lower part of the gouse that
if they had to go before their eonstituents in some great town
in Nottinghamshire, they would find the question of the repeal
of the corn-laWs one of match greater importance than they
might at present be inclined to suppose.—( Hear and laugh-
ter. He would give his most earnest, though humble, support
to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport;
and he was certain that the question which that Hon. Gentle-
man so ably advocated would, before long, produce practical
results of the greatest possible advantage to the country at
large,—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Lord POLLINGTON opposed the motion. He said it was
impossible to deny that the question before the House was one
of very great importance. It was his belief that a people could
enjoy no greater blessing than free trade ' • but, in order to
make it a blessing, it was necessary that it should be entirely
free, and not consist of that kind of free trade sallied' the late
President of the Board of Trade so much admired—namely, the
free admission into the country of the produce of ether coun-
tries that continued to impose heavy duties on English goods.
—( Hear.) He trusted they would hereafter see the day when
all the great commercial nations of the world would awaken to
their true interests, and open their respective harbours free to
all the world. He did not consider the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of her Majesty's Government altogether opposed
to the principle of direct taxation, for, by resorting to it, he
had already restored the equilibrium between the revenue and
the expenditure of the empire. The Noble Lord-concluded by
referring to a mistake made by the Morning Chronicle, in a
leading article, in confounding the Chairman of the Tory Com-
mittee at Bradford with a Mr. Barn, who presided at a recent
meeting of the Anti-Corn-law League.
Mr. SCOTT slid it was not his intention to trespass on the
time of tko House; but as the Scotch Members had been
alluded o, he did not think it right to remain altogether silent.
He wet ld feel obliged to oppose the motion of the Hon.-Member
for Stockport, because, though he believed him to be a sincere
advocate for the interests of the League, still he did not regard
him as filling the like character towards the class whom he at
present professed to support. The Hon. Member said if the
Committee were granted he would only examine before it land-
lords and tenant-farmers ; but he would ask, why should the
agricultural labourers he let out?—( Hear.) The next matter
referred to by the Hon. Gentleman was the corn-law of 1815,
but if he understood the question at all he believed the corn-
lavi s to be in existence since the time of King Charles H.
Why, then, did he not refer to the corn-laws which had been
paased since that time? All the corn-laws, in the meanwhile,
bore as much upon his subject as the present, and they had as
much relation to the corn-laws of 181.5. He believed that the
inter. sts of the manufacturers and the agriculturists were really
the same, and it was unjust and pernicious to attempt to raise a
difference between them. The landlords wished for plenty in
order to improve the condition of the labourers, and not for
scarcity, in order to afflict them. The condition of the people
was better now than it was sixty years ago, when we had only
one-half the population, and only one-third of the taxation.
The lion. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) brought forward the case
of woe! to show that IsLe n the duty was small the
consumption was great. But lie overloJked the fact that
the wed imported was chiefly from the colonies,

and therefore there was no parallel between the cases of wool
and corn. Too lion. Gentleman had also done an injustice in
comparing the amount of wages paid by Lndlords and manu-
facturers, for he did not tell the House that the landlords de-
rived very small profits from large capital, and the manufac-
turers derived large profits from comparatively small capital.
As to the statements made respecting Dorsetshire, he (Mr.
Scott) had no doubt that Dorsetshire would defend itself. The
statements (if true) were such as to make the heart bleed.—
( Hear, hear,) But the lion. Gentleman had the assurance to
speak of Seotland.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to him to depart from accuracy just in proportion as he
departed from the '• tall chimneys" which he so much admired.
—(Laughter and cheers.) The statements which the Hon.
Gentleman had made respecting respecting Scotland were un-
founded in fact, notwithstanding the assurance of the Hon. Mem-
ber. The Hon. Gentleman stated that he was totally ignorant of
the subject. The official returns, as to the duration of life in
agriculture and manufactures, shooed that the average dura-
tion of life in the agricultural districts was 32 years, whilst in
the manufacturing it was no more than 16 or 17 years, or
about one-half.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Then, as
respected the advantages to be gained by free-trade, in conse-
quence of the supposed increase of trade to ensue upon it, was
it all clear that the corn-growing countries would take our
manufactures in return for their produce? The utmost amount
that capital invested in land produced was about 3 per cent.,
whereas 50 per cent. was frequently made by those who invested
their capital in manufactures. The Hon. Mover had also
accused the landlords of being the cause of pauperism, but he
was satisfied that more pauperism was created by the manufac-
turers.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had also called
upon the gentlemen connected with Scotland, to state what
was the feeling of the farmers in that part of the empire ; and
he (Mr. Scott), as the representative of a Scotch county, would
answer, that the farmers in that country were entirely opposed
to the Honourable Mover, and regarded the question as one
which concerned them, and not the landlords.—(Hear.)
Lord WORSLEY had not intended to trespass on the
House upon this question, because he thought that if the mo-
tion was carried it would lead to a renewal of the import du-
ties. But having heard the speech of the Hon. Member for
Stockport he saw that it was part of the object that the Com-
mittee should inquire into the management of land. The Ho-
nourable Member for Stockport had stated that the re-
munerating price of the present rates of the market was
sufficient for the farmer if he paid only an adequate rent. But
he (Lord Worsley) bad received a letter from a farmer in
Lincolnshire, which stated in detail the whole of the receipts
for his produce in four years, which showed that the market
price did not repay the expense of the labour alone. The
Hon. Member for Stockport had excepted the county of Lin-
coln from the charge which he made against agriculturists for
giving too low wages. He (Lord W.) must admit that the
wages said to be given in the south were not such as could
sustain life • and he must also say that he knew it was the
fact, that although the wages in Yorkshire and Lincoln were
higher than those paid in the south, they were not
sufficient ; but they had the effect of procuring the
work to be better done, and the farmers found that

of proving that the tenant-farmers and faVoure:s were well of',
while, if they trade such an attempt, he had ample
evidence to prove the reverse, and to show that
in no part of Europe were the agricultural popula-
tion in a worse condition. The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Secretary of the Board of Trade had said that the facts
stated by the Hon. Member for Stockport were isolated cases ;
but he ( Mr. Villiers) said that they were most numerous and
general through all the middle and northern counties. Why
what did a clergyman in the county of Dorset state, in a letter
in one of the drily papers a short time ago? The Hon. Mem-
ber for that county had left the House immediately after the
speech of the Hon. Member for Stockport, because he Celt the
facts to be true ; and consequently, as he would not vote
against his conscience, he declined voting at all. The Hon.
and Rev. Mr. Osborne, to whom he had just alluded, was op-
posed, perhaps, to the Anti-Corn-law League a; much as any
lion. Gentleman opposite; but he addressed a letter to the
" great friend of the farmers," and proposed that in any Com-
mittee which might sit upon this matter, that a certain number
of witnesses from the agricultural districts should be examined,
and said that those most capable of giving evidence upon the
condition of those persons would be the medical officers of the
poor-law unions and the undertakers.—( Hear, hear.) The
same Reverend Gentleman, in the same letter, went on
to say, that if they treated the agricultural labourers as well as
they did their catttle, their lot would be a happy one, but that
no animal in England was worse off than the labourer. These
were the words of a clergyman, and yet they asked what con-
nection there was between the agricultural population
and this motion. Did any man mean to say that the present
state of the country was satisfactory, or that there was nothing
in it to excite alarm? For the last twelve years, from one
cause or another, agitation pervaded the country ; and he felt
sure that they would not put an end to it by refusing an in-
quiry.—(Cheers.) They admitted that those laws restricted
commerce, and that some of those protective laws should be
curtailed. The Government proposed no means of increasing
the employment of the people, but said they would support a
law which tended to restrict commerce, and prevent the ad-
mission of food into the country, and that because they were
afraid of their own supporters. He did not approve of unne-
cessary agitation, bat still, if that House refused to grant an
inquiry, they would be doing that which would promote agita-
tion, but must also promote general anger, and dis-
content throughout the country.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. BANKES said, if he thought the Committee proposed
by the Hon. Member for Stockport would do anything to pro.
mote the interests of the labouring classes, he would most cor-
dially support the motion ; but, when he saw that no such
result was likely to arise from it, and that it would tend to raise
expectations, which could not be realised, of a numerous and
most important class of persons, he felt bound to exercise his
judgment, and notwithstanding the eloquent appeal of that
Hon. Gentleman, to give his cordial and cheerful vote against
hi 3 proposition. He thought this Committee would be very
likely to excite that feeling, which was now fast subsiding
throughout the country. He could confidently assert that, at
the present moment, there was not the slightest feeling of
distrust towards her Majesty's Government in the minds

their money was well laid out, and the labourers were more of the agricultural classes-throughout the country. He could
contented than he was afraid they were in those countries where state most decidedly that such was the case with respect to the
wages were lower. He would also admit that the law was county which he had the honour of representing. The Hon.
working better than the farmers had expected, but yet what Member then proceeded to read several documents, to show
they received was not enough to pay them. It had also been that wages in Dorsetsbire and Wiltshire averaged at least I Is.
sail that in the southern districts wages would not be raised a week, besides other advantages or perquisites ; and eon-
without the system of leases. But in answer to that he must eluded by avowing his determination of strongly opposing the
say that in Lincolnshire leases were the exception. But then it motion.
was the practice in that country to allow land to be held in sue- Mr. BRIGHT said, that when his Hon. Friend introduced
cession from father to son—(Hear)—and the result was to create his 'lotion to the notice of the House, he felt convinced that
confidence on the part of the farmers, and also on the part of every possible party feeling would be fur one evening driven
the labourers._(Cheers.) Last winter, wages were lower than out of the doors of that House, and that there would be an
usual, but they had not been lower than 9s.—(Hear, hear, from almost unanimous opinion in favour of the motion which had
Col. Sibthorp.) Yet the usual rate of wages was 12s. a-week, been submitted to the House. He believed his Hon. Friend's
the whole year round.— (Hear, hear.) ,The general custom statement to be perfectly accurate, and to be altogether un-.
in that country was to pay by task-work, and he believed he answerable ; and whatever fate it might meet with in that
was correct in saying, that the average earning in those cases House, he was well assured of the fate it would meet with in
was from 13s. 6d. to 16s. a-week.--( Hear, hear, from Col. the country. He would not have risen to take up any of the
Sibthorp, and a laugh.) Although he did not agree in all time of the House, had it not been for speeches which had
aabjects with the Hon. Member for Stockport, he thought that 'seen made since his Hon. Friend sat down. He, however,
gentleman had done much good by drawing the attention of I :onfessed that he found extreme difficulty in attempting to dis-
the landlords to a subject which he feared was too much ne- cover anything further that could be said on the question then
glected, namely, the condition of the labourers.---( Cheers.) ander discussion. He thought nothing could be more reasonable
He thought they should he impressed with the conviction, that than the case which had been submitted to the House,
trie payment of adequate wages would be most advantageous, that there should be a Committee of Inquiry into the alleged
as well as most creditable to themselves—(Cheers)—and that fact, that protective duties in general had been serviceable to
they would find themselves repaid by the productivenes of the tenant-farmers, and the farm labourers of this country.
Their land and the increased content of the people.—(Cheers.) It was quite true that the question of sugar, and coffee, and it
He thought, if they went into Committee, there would be might be of timber, and some other articles, might come under
such a diversity of opinion as to the remedy to be applied to the the consideration of such a Committee ; but they did not hesi-
state of affairs complained of by the Hon. 111 ember who brought tate to avow that the object was specially that there should he
forward the present motion, that no good would be effected, a thorough investigation into the effect produced upon two
and he must, therefore, refuse to give his support to the motion. classes ofour eountrymen, by the operation of that particular
Mr. B. COCHRANE begged to state that he had received law which was passed with the avowed object of giving these
tt letter from the Hon. Member who had notice of an amend- two classes protection. Now, that this question was one of
molt on this subject (Mr. Ferrand), stating that he was unable extraordinary importance, no man in that House would den
to ley.
cit forward in consequence of hit having been detained Its importance was admitted by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, be-
atm the Yorkshire Assizes.
cause they thought that the repeal of the corn-law would be
EIS said that, in the
_part of the country productive of great distress to the agriculturists of this country,
Mr. CURT
wages.
_ws ere equally and to all persons connected with agriculture. Out of doors
(Susses) with which he was connected
high. He gave his own labourers, generelly, 12 . per week, there were some who thought with those Hon. Gentlemen, arid
and he gave them not more than his neighbours Ho,n. it might be that the majority of the tenant-farmers of this
Member for Stockport had not convinced his (Mr. rtiee s) country, and the majority of the owners of land also thought
mind, and though he was in favour of a fixed duty in prefer- with them. They of the Anti-Corn-law League, on the eon-
.enee to a sliding scale, yet, if he were much pressed, he would go trary, thought that the prosperitofthis countrydepended
from a fixed duty to a sliding scale.—(ll. laugh.) He consi- on the repeal of that law, and truppoonn
whichthe tahloption
dered the agricultural interest the paramount interest of the of the principles of free trade, which they believed
country, and that interest he was determined most cordially to to be the only just and honest principles
support. He must give his opposition to the motion of the vernment could be conducted. Were there none out of Go-
that
Non. Men.ber for Stockport. House that agreed with them ?—( Hear, hear.) Let them
Mr. BROTHERTON said that the speech of the Hon. not suppose that because their numbers were fe
Gentleman who spoke last showed him the truth of the adage, that House, that therefore they were few everywhere
" Convince a mar, against his will,
else. Let them not, deceive themselves by believingythat if
He's of the same opinion still." their speeches were not the most eloquent arid their arguments
--(Laughter. ) The question was, who was in the right, who not the strongest, that there were not men in every part of the
he the wrong?—whether protection to agriculture was for the country 83 intelligent as any man in that House who felt con-
benefit of the farmer and agricultural labourer, or not? As the vinced of the justness cf the principles which the Anti-Corn-
question was controverted he coneurred with the Hon. Mem- law League espoused. Those men who believed in such
fiber for Stockport, that the best way to ascertain which was principles were not to he estimated by hundreds or thousands,
aright was to investigate the subject thoroughly, which but by millions, in Great Britain and Ireland. If they wanted
could be best done in the Committee for which the lion, Mem- proof of it they should have that proof. There had been
leer had moved. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last said ho deputations to the Government from various parts of the coon-
considered the agricultural interest the paramount interest. try--not from the manufacturing districts only, but from the
lie (Mr. Brotherton) was at issue with the Hon. Member on rural districts,-deputations of 500 persons at a time—asking
that subject. He believed the agriculturul labourers, farmers, the Government to consider this question ind to repeal this
and graziers of the country formad not cite-teeth part of the law. They had had petitions with 500,00') signatures one
_population of the country. In the agricultural counties they I )ear--a million the next, a million and a half the third, and
~were not one-third of the people employed. He had examined between two and three millions the fourth. For all these peti-
ties, the principal part of tions they had cared little, but they had seen subscriptions
tNie condition of 'went}'-three
were #grieuh oral ;11a".i4;de hee"fonund
.that out of their popu- i three or four yea's alto,
League.
to 1,,000 /., to the
The second year they
lotion, amounting lo and in agri- came to 1•2,M0/., the third year they amounted to 50,00(1/.,
to 6,03.8,1333,,ther,e here employed in trade, funds of the Anti-Corn-law
arid various other occupations, persons;
was rapidly a -
P
culture, including farmers, graziers, yeomen, and agri- ; and this year they found that the League fund
of those twenty-three -I proaching 100,00t3. That proved nothing with relxct to the
cultural labourers in 'lithe whole
counties, 5e5,104, making a total of 2,.14 truth of the principles which the Anti-Ci n-law ea'l had
-1 ,716, and
glowing that all lire classes of agriculturists together bore only i adopted—it merely proved that there was a great and growing
wg
re t popu
fit . proportion of 27 jeer cent. to the whole number employed, opinion in their favour among nearly all classes of td-
vit.tik those engaged la teade and otherwise were 33 per cent. i tion. of this country. Now, they were charged with exciting I
people to violence and insurrectionary movements.
,of the whole. In the agileeiltural districts of Lancashire there the people
from the Ministerial benches.) One lion. Gentle-
-were not more than 32 per cenZ, employed in proportion to the (Cherryre
...whcle population. He contende4, therefore, that the agri- man opposite, one of the Members of one of the divisions of
vultu,.al interest was not the paramount interest of the country, : Watw icks iire, and
a magisii ateofthateounty! hadti
stated, and
and that 'they ought not to Lave ;law fey ;4:4,r Pwp bene,Ot at lie (Mr. Bright) believed that c had stated it tti that ?nu.—