The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-25 00:00:00

had omitted allusion to the argument that the corn purchased abroad
under the operation of the sliding scale was paid for in bullion,
not in manufactured goods. The operation of the Corn-laws was to
prevent deficient harvests inflicting any injury on the agricultural
classes, whilst they made a deficient harvest Inflict a severe injury
upon the commercial classes. They had heard a great deal re-
specting the operation of the Corn-laws on wages. Hon. Gentle-
men had endeavoured to impress upon the minds of the working
classes an opinion that if the Corn-laws were altered the rate of
wages would come down. He took a different view of the subject.
The would not deny that in all over-peopled countries the price of
wages depended upon the price of corn. But was this country over-
peopled ? If it were so, it was in consequence of their own fault.
Why slid they not allow themselves to have the use of the
rice land of America, and the Americans to have the use of British
industry, by permitting a free interchange of commodities ? If that
were the case, they would find that the country was not over-peoPled-
The over-population of which they complained so much was en-
tirely owing to the operation of the Corn-laws. The Right Hon.
Baronet had alluded to the great increase in machinery as one of
the causes of the existing distress. Now his (Mr. Hindley's) great
objection to the Corn-laws was, that they gave an artificial
stimulus to the use of machinery. Every improvement in
machinery was made with a view of superseding the employment of
dear labour, and it was the operation of the Corn-laws that forced
on this process. The machine did not eat bread, and the manufac.
turer who, by employing machinery was enabled to make one man
do the work of four, saved the tax upon bread which was paid by
Wee persons. They had forced the poor hand loom weavers to
compete with power-looms, and also with the (reign labourer, who
did not eat taxed corn. It was vain to say that the price of labour
could be kept up by the good.will of the masters ; they could
not, how desirous soever they might be to assist their labourers,
they could not pay them a greater amount of wages than
the prices at which the goods were sold in the market would
allow them to pay. In 1835 the Hon. Member for Oldham and
himself had drawn the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet, who
was then, as now, at the head of the Government, to this subject.
At that time commuuications had taken place between some of
the manufaoturers in Lancashire and the Poor-law Commission.
ers with a view of distributing the surplus labour in
the agricultual districts among the manufacturers. With
that view. Mr. Muggeridge had gone down to Manchester,
and had appeared there every market day on the Ex-
change, asking every manufacturer how many families he
would want to.day, and disposing of the agricultural labourers
as persons from Liverpool disposed of their cottons, or as the
Manchester manufacturers themselves disposed of their cotton goods.
The Hon. Member for Oldham moved that the correspondence of
the manufacturers with the Poor-law Commissioners should be laid
bef ire the House; and he (Mr. H.) seconded the motion; but it
was opposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, though he did not speak
against it, and it was lost by 123 to 3; and now, after five years
they were told that whatever the state of the country there would be
some cause for complaint, and some individuals would be distressed.
—(Cries of " Divide.") The Hon. Memoer for Stockport had said,
and he (Mr. H.) agreed with him, that if they took the quality
of the articles into consideration they would receive from the
English labourer more than from any other. Hon. Gentlemen
opposite must remember that if they had no machinery and no
mills—much as mills were derided—there would be no necessity
for a Corn-law.—(Hear.) Why, they might, if they pleased, ex-
port their corn, but if they had no mills they would not get the
price they now obtained fur it, and which he (Mr. Hindley)
wished they would continue to receive. —(" Divide, divide.") He
presented a petition the other day from a hand-loom weaver who
stated that he could not now obtain by six days' labour what he
formerly received for one, and that he could trot even now obtain
2s. 3d. for the employment he hid formerly. That was the de-
preciation of the poor man's property, and if 'the property of
HonourableGentlemen opposite was depreciated to the same extent,
and theyhad now only 5,0001. a year from the property which 14 years
ago yielded them 45,0001. a-year, how soon they would make the
House of Commons legislate on the subject for them. The working
classes looked to them for justice, and hoped they would not make
such a depreciation of their property. He did not wish to find
fault with machinery, and he thought, when properly re-
gulated, it conferred the greatest benefit on society. He
would now suppose that a machine was invented which
would supply England with corn in any quantity,
and that sueh invention was announced on the Ist of August last ;
and in such a case he would ask, would the Right Hon. Baronet
be allowed so many months for deliberation as was granted to him
in the case of the manufacturers ; and would not his own snip.
porters call on him to legislate on the subject at once ?—(Divide_)
They would not object to such a machine, and yet there was no
difference in that case from that of machinery producing goods
which they might exchange for foreign corn to be brought to this
country, and on which depended the welfare or misery of 8,000,000
indivi Orals. He would say, therefore, that the Corn laws inter-
fered with a principle that was sound in itself.—(Divide, divide.)
But it is said that there were peculiar burdens affecting the
agriculturists which rendered protection necessary. (Cries
of " Oh, oh:") The Right Hen. Baronet might, perhaps,
recollect that he (Mr. Ilindley) volunteered a declaration for-
merly on the subject, which gave off.mce to hit constituents ;
he then thought the agriculturists were affected by peculiar
burdens, but he had since been asked what those burdens were,
and he confessed he could not tell. He knew that the Poors-
rate and Land-tax were mentioned, but he never heard it
proved that the agriculturists were affected more than
other portions of the community. He asked now to have these
burdens proved. He did not believe they could be proved, and
yet it was in consideration of such burdens that the Noble Lord the
Member for London advocated A fixed duty of Bs.—( Cries

" Divide.' ) But he did not state what ought to be called, or what
ought not to bo called, burdens. They did not apprehend
the arithm :tic of the case--they did not understand political eco-
nomy enough for the subject ; and yet, in passing a Corn-law, they
should understand the peculiar burdens which affected the agri-
culturists.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He eou Id neither get
from the Right lion. Baronet, nor from the Noble Lord an ex-
planation of those burdens. And when he went out of the
House, the first authority that met him was that of Mr.
M'Culloch, who says the land bears peculiar burdens, and he there-
fore advocates a fixed duty of ss. The next was Mr. Tooke, who
stated that the utmost the land could claim was Is. per quarter,
and lie thought he cou'd get the Anti-Corn League to make them
a present of that.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
The Hon. Member proceeded (amidst loud and persevering cries
of " liar, bar," " Order, order," " Hear, hear," •' Read, read,"
Ice.) to contend that a fixed duty would enable fo-
reign growers-to anticipate the wants of the country, so that, corn
should never rise to an excessiveprice. tie concluded by declaring
that he had been reared In a respect for the aristocracy, and he
should wish to see them show themselves as the friends of every great
popular measure which tended to advance the rights and liberties of
mankind "—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide," amidst which the
Hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. GILL, who sp..ka amidst the greatest confusion, said that
after seven night's debate, he xsas unwilling to occupy the House,
but he was bound to say that he thought it would be Injustice to
the agriculturists to do away with the protection all at once
Whiff he mad, these observations with reference to the immedi.
ate and total repeal of the Corn.laws, he could assure the Hon.
Member fir Wolverhampton that he had made them from no want
of sympathy on his own part for the 38,000 he represented in that
House. They felt great sympathy fir the distress that had
been so feelingly pourtrayed in that House, but he believed that
the community would not derive any advantage from a total re-
peal of the Corn-laws, It uas his opinion that they would derive
an equal benefit from a duty of ss. Ile thought if the lion.
Member fur ‘Volverhampton had confined himself to a low
duty, he would have carried the voice of the whole of
that bide of the House with him.—(Cries of " Divide, divide
He preferred a fixed duty to a eliding scale, because he thought
the former would benefit the people by ensuring the steadiness
of price. Ile admitted that the scale proposed by the Right
lion. Baronet would be better than the one at present in exist.

ence ; but having paid that tribute to it, he should not feel
justified in saying anything further in its favour.—(Hear.)
He wesi'd not trouble the House, because he would have another
opportunity of addressing them when the Bill was before the House.
—(Loud ironical cheers, cries of " Order, order," and considerable
confusion.) He believed that the constituencies that had sent the
Hon. Member to that House, would regard that House not
in the most favourable light. It appeared to him
that they were degenerating from the character of legislators.
—(lmud ironical cheers.) He hoped that when the Bill was before
the House that the plan proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet
would be modified.

Mr. FIELD EN rose arnitlst load cries of Divide, divide, followed
by ironical cheers and " Order." The Hole Gentleman spoke is an
extremely low tone of voice, and said that if }lore Gentlemen
would but listen to him, he would not detain them
for more than five minutes. He was one of there
who, notwithstanding the many speeches that had been made in
favour of it, did not think that the Corn-laws were a benefit to the
country, for he was convinced that it would be better for this
count. y if a free trade was opened in corn, which would cause pro.
visions to be low. They had had protection for o 6 years, but they
had not grown sufficient corn for the people, therefore they were
not entitled to protection. Ii it was necessary that protection
should artist, he should be wining to grant it, but they must
give an assurance that they would grow sufficient
corn for the people.—(Hear) They would not allow
them to go into foreign countries for coin, while
the people were starving for the want of it. If this was the
case, how could the Corn-laws be a benefit to the country? In one
pelt of the British dominions there were 1,700 inhabitants perish.
ing of hunger, and yet they would not prevent those 1,705 people
.front famishing. Was it not a disgrace that 1,700 people—the
manufacturers of Paisley, who were engaged In the manufacture
of fabrics of the most beautiful workmanship, to grace the per.
sons of their wives and slaughters, should be now in a state of want of
the actual necessaries of life, and that three Ministers of the Crown
should rise in their places, and beseech Hon. Members of that House to
pass no law which would afford the starving thousands any relief ?
—(Cries of " Divide, and order." The gentlemen had been called
on year after year to turn their attention to the sufferings of the
working people, and afford them some relief. They had refused to do
this, and in his (Jlr. Fielden'e) opinion, they were not worthy of
The sympathy of the country: He should vote for his Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton, and he should do so because they
had thrown the poor on their own resources. They were no longer
entitled to protection, and whatever might be the sentiments in that
House, they might depend upon it, that the mighty interests of the
multitude out of doors depended upon the repeal of the Corn-laws,
and that they would never rest till they obtained their repeal.
If the Hon. Baronet had now the moral cougagc to take the bull
by the horns, and deal fairly by the people, there was no doubt of
his success in carrying a useful measure for the regulation of the
corn trade, and the result would be that the country would be con.
Siderably improved.
General JOHNSON rose to address the House amidst loud
cries of " Divide.") Silence having been after some time obtained,
he said that were it not for the peculiar. situation in which
he was placed by living in an agricultural district, and
representing a very large borough, he would not have
trotefed the House at all. He had listened with the utmost
etteation to the debate, and he then rose merely to explain
why he gave his vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton, he had given the subject a great deal
cr consideration, and nothing' that he had heard could satisfy
iHhpoimit.
thatf
the food' of the people should be taxed for the sup_
the realm ; he could assign other reasons why
he had voted against what might be considered
his own interest, but he thougnt it was but justice, and therefere
he would vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wo!verhamp.on ; there was merely one other observation which he
Would make, that was withreference to what had fallen from the
Honourable Member for Donegal, who stated that the
agricultural interests of Ireland would materially injured
by the repeal of the Corn-taws,
He (General b
Johnson
merely ask the on. Gmtleinan whether he thought it would
\possible
Chet any law could be enacted that could place the agricultural
interest of Ireland in a worse condition than they are now.
Mr. VILLIERS said that he would not intrude upon the
Heese at that late hoer, but he w s sure he would
net preeeet a cool consideration of the question, after the speech
of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. The Hon. Gentleman
who delivered that speech could not be blamed, and he was con.
sulsed with pleasure and satisfaction at the delivery of that
speech—a speech which seemed to cast the most se.
vere censure upon the manufacturing classes—(Hear)—
which censured most grossly the objebts and motives of those who
.brought fer ward this question, and whirls seemed to him (Mr.
Villiers) to include, in its censure, all the manufacturing and II
agricultural interests of the country. That speech was received
With a degree of satisfaction he bad never witnessed in that House,
and he was of opinion that so striking was that speech, that it
gave a decided character to the question now under their considers.
Lion. He defied any person who had witnessed the manner in
which that speech was received, was cheered, and applauded, with_
out seeing that it *met with the entire approbation of Ho-
iurnirable Gentlemen. Therefore, those who had cheered
and encouraged the Honourable Member for Knaresborough,
strictly identified themselves with his views.—( Loud cheers.)
However, there were two statements made by the Hon. Member for
irstaresborough, which, I must say decidedly and distinctly,are wholly
!din fact.—(" Hear, hear," and " Order, order.") One of
al .9**l-44altilieents was, that the petitions presented to this House
n-law; had been paid for.—(Loud cries of "No,