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

•
Triunity by the corn laws ? The corn-laws were a direct I
interference with the freedom of trade—the freedom of
ndustry ; and it was incumbent on those who main-
ained this interference to prove that the community wa;
benetitted by restriction.—(Hear, hear.) The Iroi. 1
Gentleman had stated that the tonants themselves were

the originators of the Pro-Corn-law Society. Coming
from an agricultural county, he knew how easy it was to
give a hint, through the steward, that the tenants were
required to attend. on some particular day, on behalf of
the interests of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted
to know who it was that represented the agricultural
tabourer in the Agricultural Societies. When the Pro-
(Corn-law Society was formed, no one appeared to repre •
sent him ; no one said, on his behalf, that it was for his
advantage that security should be maintained. It was
denied by the lion. Member for Lincolnshire that the
declarations of the Right Honourable Gentleman
at the head of the Government had had any
effect on the value of land, or on the bargains
between landlords and tenants. Why he himself
had seen in the London papers, the other day, an adver-
tisement of the sale of e:eates by Mr. George Robins, in
which one of the grounds stated why agriculturists
hould come forward and give a large sum for them was,
'hat the Right Hon. Gentleman had deelarel Viet the
orn-lawof 1841 was a final and irrevecable settlement of
his great question. Did an eminent auctioneer want to
tet less for an estate than it was worth ? He regretted
those statements which disparaged the authority of the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government.
.He regretted the disposition which was exhibited, to
put forced interpretations on his declarations.
As a friend to the English farmer—es one whose
interest was bound up with that of the agricultural class,
he complained of such an interpretation of tie Right
Hon. Gentleman's statements. For what mot be the
effect ? They were teaching them that the corn law
protection was to he permanent, while at the same time.
the Right Hon. Gentleman had never said that he cen-
templated the permanence either of the present or of any
other corn-law,—(Hear, hear.) llis assertion was that
at the present moment he did not contemplate a change,
test he had no measure then to submit ; that was a very
diiferent Thing from saying that,he contemplated the per-
manent maintenance of the protective principle. • For
gentlemen to put that interpretation on his words
was to strengthen the fatal error into which the agricul-
tural tenantry hal fallen, namely, that it was better to
rely upon what Parliament could do for them than upon
their own industry and enterprise. Gentlemen who slid
this were not acting as the true friends of the farmer ;
they were not promoting the real and permanent inte•
rest even of the landed proprietors ; nor were they, in
any way, advancing the true welfare of the community at
large.—(llear, hear.) Now the Hon. Member for Lin-
colnshire said he felt conscious that the iucendiarism in
Suffolk, arose from the deep-rooted discontent of the peo-
ple, and that that discontent arose from distress. He said
that the farmers must pay the labourers better wages,
the very expression showing that ha hal taken an erro-
neous view of the while question of wages. Why people
could not pay what wages they pleased.—(Hear, hear.)
It was not in the power of individuals to regu-
late wages. From the redundancy. of population, and
the pressure on the means of existence, men would
work for the smallest possible amount of
wages upon which they could live. Let them consider
whether there were not some causes arising from their
legislation which produced this discontent and distress
in a country which apparently had within itself all the
resources of happiness and prosperity. It was remark-
able that incendiarism should prevail in Norfolk, Suffolk,
and Essex, where protection was supposed to confer the
greatest benefit—counties which were, to a great extent,
grain-growing counties, and in which tht re were all
those means and appliances in the greatest abundance
which they were frequently told were essential to
the morality and good conduct of the popu-
lation. There • were no counties in England in
which the clergy so abounded. To such an extent
did they abound, that if a gentleman's calling did not
happen to be known, he was set down as a clergyman.—
(Laughter.) Yet, notwithstanding these means and
appliances for good, a system of the most awful crime
twee-tiled ; for what, system could be more appalling than
incendiarism ?—(flear, hear.) They had a right to ex-
pect that they should be allowed to live in their homes,
without having their lives or property endangered. Ile
denied the insinuation thrown out by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that
this incendiarism might he the result of agitation in fa-
vour of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) Ile contended that that
insinuation was unworthy of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
lie defied him to produce the smallest atom of proof
that any incitement to incendiarism had been thrown
out by the opponents of protection. For one placard
which had been circulated by the Anti-Corn-law
League in the county of Suffolk, he ventured to say,
that ten had been circulated by the Pro-Corn-law
League.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had laid
down the doctrine that the less corn there was in the
country, the greater would be the share of the labourer.
Ile ventured to say that they would then find that
during cheap years the wages of the labourer had
not given him a greater command over the comforts
and necessaries of life than he had in dear years. They
would find that in the cheap years the labourer had had,
it was in his power to obtain a larger quatitity of food
than in the dear year.----(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentlemen, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade,
seemed to think that his llon. Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton had no right to ask for an explanation
of the grounds on which protection was based, those
groan is being fully explained in Hansard's Debates.
Now leo confessed that although he had read nearly all
the speeches on this subject, he could not find one in
which. 'the advantages of protection were clearly set
forth. The Right Hon. Gentleman said they
were visionary theorists and schemers, and
that without proof of the disadvantages of the corn-
law, they were not entitled to call upon the
Government to explain why it was maintained. Now
he took a completely different view of that question.
He maintained that those who maintained the corn-laws
were the visionary schemers ; for they interfered with
the natural course of things, they came forward with a
subtle and refined scheme of ascending and descending
duties for regulating the importation of corn, for makng
mankind happy, and trade and agriculture prosperous.
lie (Mr. M. Gibson) did not concur in these extreme
opinions,. He preferred trusting to plain common sense,
the natural course of events, and the operation of men's
interests upon their actions, rather than to that visionary
scheme which was maintained by the Government, but
which he hoped would not long be maintained in this coun-
try The NoblelLord, the Member for theCityof London,
held extreme opinions in favour of a moderate fixed
duty; believing that that was the device for making
trade flourish, and for promoting the improvement of
agriculture and the happiness of society. To both the
devices he preferred that mea should 1;o allowed to buy
in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, believing
that Providence had intended that as the means of
securing general prosperity. He maintained that those
were the visionary schemers who interfered with the
natural freedom of industry. They had a right to call
upon them to explain clearly and definitely what were
the advantages which they conferred upon society by so
subtle a scheme, and if they failed to prove those advan-
tages, they were entitled to ask for the total and imme-
diate repeal of the corn law. Now lie wished to know
how the corn-law benefited that particular class with
whom he was connected namely the manu-
facturers ? When a buyer went from the
town of Norwich to Manchester to purchase
a fall of goods for the purpose of retailing them in Nor-
folk, would he give anymore for them than a buyer from
America ? If he would not what was the alsrantage
conferred on the manufacturers by the corn-law ?-__
(Hear, hear.) But if he reversed the case ho found that
the manufacturer had to give a great deal more
for his wheat in Norfolk than he would have to give in
New York•---(llear, hear.) This appeared to him to be
a very odd kind of reciprocity. He defied the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire to show that he had any pro-
perty in the raw material, the machinery, or the labour
which was employed in the production of a particular
fabric ; and how could he say, then, that he
was entitled to special protection as a landlord ?
Could it be said that the proprietors of the land had any
property in the industry of other men ?—(Hear, hear.)
Could it be said that by any right, b uman or divine, they
were entitled to deny to the manufacturers the freedom
of industry which they demanded ?--(Cheers.) They
came to this House on the tame grounds as the Dis-
senters had formerly come—to complain of disabilities.—
They told the House that they could only live by the ex-
change of the products of their labour. They said that
their trade was legitimate and proper, and the only call-
ing which they had to follow. But the Legislatures—not
for revenue—not for State necessities—but for the in-
terests of a particular class—(Cheers)—prevented them
from obtaining the advantages which Providence had
placed within their reaches--(Hear, hear.) They did nut
refuse to the aristocracy the enjoyment of their estates—
whether they were held by inheritance or by purchase.
They asked no more than that the aristocracy should be
satisfied with their estates.—(Cheers.) The landlords
had bought, or hat inherited their estates, but they had
never bought or inherited any right over the industry of
other men.—(Cheers.) The landlords were entitled to
the full value of thetr estates, but they were not entitled
to take the lamest slice from the lea'; of the poorest class
of her Majesty a subjects. He called on the Paymaster
of the Forces, after his long experience, to state what was
the ground on which the- landholders of the country
had a matter of right to interfere with the industry of
others. When he (Mr. Gibson) was at Cambridge lie
read the works of Paley, as part of his academie course.
That great philoecipher said that every restraint was, in
itself, an evil, and that those who impose it should prove
its advantages, and that it was not incumbent upon those
who suffered from the restraint to prove that it was an evil.
—(Hear, hear.) On that fground, he (Mr. Gibson)
demanded' the immediate abolition of this great evil and
cruel restraint. The total and immediate abolition of
the c em-laws was the only mode of settling the queStiell,
for tiny other expedient will still leave uncertainty and
doubt. And when they came to vested interests, he
must inquire what was the nature of the possession ? It
was an adverse possession, and ne time could give a
title from an adverse possession.—(Hear, hear.) The
law was passed by a Legislature of landlords.—(Tory
cries of " Oh; oh !") Yes, it was a Legislature of land-
lords, for no man could b 3 a Member of the House of ,1
Commons who did not swear that he was posseKed 1
of land of the value of 3001. a year.—(Hear, hear.)
The large manufacturing towns were not at the time re-
presented, and the aristocracy had an especial monopoly
of legislation by means of close boroughs.—(Hear, hear.)
At the time of the /sassing of the corn-law, Lord Liver-
pool avowed that the object was to prevent the settle-
ment which would otherwise take place between landlord
and tenant upon the restoration of peace. But the de •
mends and entren.tie.s of those who opposed the measure
were not attended to, and the law was passed against.)
the expressed will of the country, forl that object Were
alone
which Lord Liverpool avowed: (llear hear.)
Slot the landlords aware, at the time, 'that the peace
would induce the manufacturers of other countries to ex-
tend their works, and to come into competition with the