The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 184 .

Lord HOWICK remarked, that the promoters of Railway
Bills were at a loss to know how they were to get on, as many
of them despaired of getting their Bills through both Houses
this session. If the Government, as he hoped they would see
the propriety of doing so, would give an idea of their intentions
respecting those measures, a great benefit would accrue. Deft-
, nite information as to the course Government intended to take
respecting Railway Bills that were unable to be carried
through both Houses this session, would remove a great deal
of difficulty.
Sir JOHN WALSH wished to know from the Right Hon.
Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) in regard
to the resolutions he meant to propose, whether it was his in-
tention to move them altogether or separately? He asked this
question, as the resolutions were quite distinct in the princi-
ples which they sot forth.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman had better
wait till the close of his speech.
Captain PECHELL said, that on Feiday last he had put a
question to the Hun. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury,
respecting the conveyance of the mail to the Scilly blonds,
and for copies of the correspondence which had passed between
Mr. Aueustus Smith and the Post-office authorities.
Mr. CARDWELL answered that the papers were in the
hands of the printer.
In answer to Mr. MANGLES,
Lord JOCELYN replied that all the returns :applied for
were in the hands of the printers.
MR. O'DRISCOLL.

their children.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say at once,
that if any person tells me that he thinks the subject of the
condition and subsistence of the people unconnected with their
education and instruction, my answer is—that so far from their
being unconnected, they cannot be separated, and that you
cannot take a general and comprehensive view of the situation
of the people without taking within that view both means for
their physical comfort, and means for their religious, moral,
and literary instruction.—(Cheers. ) In looking at the con-
dition of the people, I do not wish to go over details which
must be familiar to most Members of this House, with respect
to the wages on which a great portion of the people of this
country subsist. It is well known that, in many counties in
England—in many of the agricultural counties—the
wages are not more than 7s. or as. a week. That has been
stated repeatedly, arid when I asked gentlemen connected with
these counties whether that is so—whether such was the
amount of wages the labourers earned—they answered that
undoubtedly such was the fact—such is the condition of the
labouring classes in these counties.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir,
if that be a fact, I need not say what privations it implies_
what evil it signifies--and what an insufficient means of pro-
viding for the comfort of the labourers. Neither need I go
into details, in order to show that the dwellings of the labourers
in many of the counties are totally insufficient for their ac-
commodation—that families are crowded together without any
regard to the rules of decency—that many members of a
family are obliged to sleep in the same room—and that
neither health nor comfort is consulted in the struggle which
becomes necessary, in order to retain a room for which
they can afford to pay.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But,
Sir, there are general considerations which, it appears to me,
we ought to take into account, and which involve a retro-
spect for a very considerable period of time. lam now, there-
fore, going to trace the changes which took place in a long
course of years ; going back to periods of the last century be-
fore the French Revolution. At that time we had a debt
of about 250,000,0001., and between 14,000,0001. and
15,000,000/. was the sum then necessary for the interest of
that debt and other expenses. There was then a poor-
rate amounting to 12,500,000/., and the practice of pay.
inn the allowance to labourers out of the poor-rate, was then
altogether unknown to this country. In the course of the war
which England carried on in 1793, various changes took place
—changes, in my opinion, much for the worse, as regards the
situation of the people—changes, the effects of which, I think,
we are still suffering under, and which have, from time
to time, been brought under the notice of this House.
In the first place, we have an immense increase
of our debt, and a proportionate increase of our taxation.
That increase of debt was, in my mind, made in the most ex-
travagant manner. Many of the loans were contracted in such a
manner that more than 6 per sent. was paid for interest, and
that not reducible, but remaining to the future. Sums were
borrowed in the Three per Cents., as in 1797, when 2001. was
given, besides other advantages, to the lender of 1001. So
that it appeared, by the table at the end of Mr, M'Culloch's
late work on taxation (the last edition), that the sum of
400,000,000/., which we borrowed during the war, entailed
upon us the interest of a debt of more than 21,000,0001.—thus
obliging us to pay more than 5 per cent. interest. When, in
the beginning of the last century, debts were contracted in
times of war, the interest which was necessarily engaged to be
paid at the time and subsequently was capable of reduction,
so that Sir Robert Walpole (during the long peace, begun in
1713), during his administration, was able to reduce the
interest on the debt, by about half the total of the
amount which it was at the end of the war. That course has
riot been possible with any Ministry of this country, considering
the mode in which the debt of the last war was contracted.'
We have, therefore, in considering the taxation, to recollect
that the payment of the interest on this debt is guaranteed by
public faith, and that it is out of our power to alter it. The
whole amount to which we could alter the expenditure consists
between the amplest and the most narrow expenditure consist-
ent with a peace establishment, which is about 3,000,000/.
( Hear.) At the same time, in speaking of the subject of taxa-
tion, I think I should not omit to state that we have been able
from time to time to abolish or diminish taxes which were laid
on the necessaries of life ; such as the tax on leather, salt, and
candles, which have been entirely done away with. If any one
will look at the complaints of the weight of taxation
in the last century, they. will see that tax (the
interest of the debt) pointed out as a tax most
injurious to the interests of the country. Still the power
which we have in one way or another, whether by direct or
indirect taxation, to bear this great amount of interest for the
debt was an obligation from which we could not escape, and
any one who examines the proposal made by the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government this year for this com-
mutation of taxation—a relief of taxation by taking it from
those things upon which it presses with the greatest severity
and imposing it on those things which he and the House con-
sidered would be less felt—a change by which it was believed
taxation would press less heavily on the industry and resources
of the country. Another subject upon which great alterations
have been made is that of currency, alluding to which the
Right Hen. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) last year called it the fatal
measure of 1797. The tendency of that measure was greatly
to degrade the labouring classes.—( Hear, hear. )
I say, the tendency of that measure went to diminish the wages
of labour. These wages were neither increased in proportion
to the rise which took place, nor to the rise which occurred in
the value of money. At the same time that depression of the
general currency of the country led to effects which such de-
pressi rn has always produced—that extravagant mode of living
—that sudden employment of high profits—that neglect of
frugality and vigilance which those engaged in agriculture or
in trade practise in ordinary times, and which neglect and
exitement produce lasting evils in the country. Ido not see
that in this respect we can make any great change in the con-
dition of the labourer—at least to his advantage. I believe
that the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman in
1819, and the Bill proposed last year, are founded on sound
principles, and without discussing what was their necessity or
their adaptation to the particular time in which they were
brought forward, I believe it would be the greatest misfor-
tune if the House would endeavour to depart materially from
the principles sanctioned by these measures. At the same
time I think we must always remember that these measures in
themselves produce their evils—that they have disadvantages
accompanying them—that they produced a contracted cur-
rency which followed the measure of 1819, and at the time
created great evils, amongst others injury to the industrious
classes which lasted for a considerable time. But now, Sir, I
come to another subject upon which I think Parliament may
legislate, and with benefit—to overturn as they have
the enormous currency legislation of the war period—l alludef
to the policy of restriction and monopoly. If any one speaks of
that policy—of the policy of monopoly and restriction, or, as ie
is flatteringly termed, " protection to native industry," he
croaky of it as of an anuiont ostablishment, as a matter becom_
interwoven with the laws of the country, and therefore ex
tremely difficult to touch. But, Sir, let us go a little further,
arid look at what has been actually the case. We shall find that
the chief monopoly or restriction which now exists was intro-
duced by men who are still living—by persons who are still in
Parliament—by those who, although not now in the direction
of public affairs, still remain among us, and whose acts we must
therefore consider as the acts of our own time. I allude to the
system of restriction and monopoly, which was, in the time of
Adam Smith, called the mercantile system ; and Adam Smith,
in speaking of the restriction introduced by the corn-laws, says
he believes that those restrictions in favour of the monopoly
of particular trades were introduced by persons who
were used to the narrow spirit of corporations—that from cor-
porations it became common to traders, and was by them
adopted in the Legislature of the country—that the country
gentlemen, whose nature was, generally speaking, generous,
and alien to such partial restrictions; were induced to adopt
this policy, of little value to them, but supposed to be bene-
ficial, because it was so considered by the manufacturer and the
merchant. Adam Smith might be, and no doubt was, relating
what was conformable to the experience of his own time, but
the experience of our time has brought us to an entirely dif-
ferent state.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) We have
a vast export of manufactures, amounting, perhaps, to
50,000,000/. ; our manufacturers sell their goods at all the
markets of the world ; but they consider monopoly and re-
striction is of no use to them, and they are willing to admit
the imports of every country on the same terms as they desire
their own to be received in foreign countries.—(Hear.) They
therefore, have adopted generally, with a few exceptions, the
theory which Adam Smith and his followers proposed, and
which all the political economists adopted—that restriction is
mischievous—that it is unwise to favour one class at the ex-
pense of another, and that such policy is injurious to the
labouring classes, above all the classes in the community.
Well, Sir, if such be the case, let us look at the history of some
of those restrictions. I will look at one which has relation
to timber. ( The Noble Lord then quoted extracts from
Alt Culloch's Commercial Dictionary, and other books, to show
that with a restrictive policy our imports of timber had been
greatly diminished, and that trade had been thereby
seriously injured, and the same argument applied
to wool, against restrictions upon which,
28 the
merchants of London petitioned the Legislature in 18
be
The present Earl Fitzwilliam had said such a course would
going back to barbarism. Sir Mathew Ridley said he saw
theto ta l
otherruin to the
the manufacturerpuke ef inßi
Richmond
ep
er proposed
Many
Com-
mittee should be appointed to inquire into the matter.
duty would
causeconsidered
enthtiarte this system ofo fonly
the tide
pound all engaged in
rseecilwineeedastuhreet,eandin
of which Lord
the trade. In the report of the Committeehre was a great Malmesbury was chairman, it was stated t
de-
ficiency in the import of 'foreign wool which
there
alarming.
From the benefit import duty on foreign wool.
highly desirable that
re-
suited to the English wool-grower, it was
were many articles
• wool should be admitted, for there .
foreign
Such was the view that 'those gentlemen entertained.
whicha high
the last year the duty had
couldbe introduced. In the course of
his
Hon. Friend the
been increased, but on the motion of
Member for Halifax • the whole duty had been
taken off, and
interests t s of
greater consumption of wool.
of English manufacture into which nothing but foreign wool
the result had been a mach
first eight
exported
months of this year greatly exceeded the quantity
last year, and the British wool grower obtained a better
. price
one of many instances of
The woollen manufactures exported during the first eight
for his articles. I mention this as
the beneficial effects arising from the abolition of high duties
I am desirous of maintaining,
viz.,
that those laws which
would impose on the people un-
necessaryof late years, and it is an instance of the proposition which
operated in restricting labour
• uted.
prin-
ciples cannot be disp It is impossible to deny, that if
price onwhat
a duty caused a higher
taxes. I think that proposition. on general
.the poor man was less able to purchase
imposed those duties
educate his children,and
was most
clothes and food, and to
buy it necessarily imposed a duty on their labour. If they
among a
which is still prevalent considerable party in this
_
n that it is right to give protection to certain
likely to be dissatisfied with his condition. There is an opinion
country who maintain
articles, and that it is right to protect the industry of the
think
be abolished. I
strictions of a protective nature should
country. On the other hAanird.,
vittitanisscontendedin
etxhpatresaslilenree-f
it necessary that one or the other of these opinions should be
acted on, or let us imitate
be •
protection should given to every branch of stal .
unsound. For my
in-
dustry, or abandon
hold it as false and unsound. I should be sorry to
own part,
his policy
t on the subject, as it has been pr
enter into an argument the principle as false and
r es thanen ht
me y
let should
th e
hmoreover,
abstract question,
Parliament as no
a matter on which, as an _
Ido not think Parliament should say you
by the greatest writers on the ,subject ; and it is, oves°
right to interfere.
ostacle tool.;
market, any m
the dearest; but every man ought to bo in
tell you to go to
market which he liked best—(
a condition to go to that
hear)—and, if there wa
• terfere ; but if it was his • h
wis to exchange his
Legislature in
' ins in any market for the advantage of
labour or his productit
must go to the cheapest
was any
what business had the
Legislature to in-
terferehimself and family,
say you shall notf make that exchange—you shall
and
not go to any person
innoat otii•iesrgensecoeuntryand make that
f
exchange you shall f the produce of
in at
way you please ? But this
your own labour
it it
theory, which is perfectly unsound in
is not only an abstract
itself, but is • opposed to the common sense of mankind ; and
it is a theory on which many mistakes have arisen. The
Ministry, in 1842,.,
proposed a
great
alteration on the subject.
articles
Iterations in many immediately connected
They were a
with the produce of the manual labourers of this country. But
madedifferent
manner, with
these alterations were in a totally
f these persons, and with regard to others.
respect to some o
There were many persons greatly offended at
reatly the
great extent
d their measures. 1, myself, as a Member
to which they carried
on knew of many individuals who were in
for the City of Lend
a frenzy at the prospect of their trade being reduced. There
who said that the ropes would be made
were the rope-makers,
in Russia, if a low duty were put upon the raw material. There
were the corkeutters, the and boot shoemakers, who were all
much inflamed at the free-trade plans introduced by the '
Right on
H ourable Baronet. There were men who were
amount, averaging from 15s. to 255. per
earning a certain

Mr. ROSS wished to know whether it was true what had
been stated about the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll, a magistrate,
at a recent trial at Skibboreen. It was reported that that
gentleman had made use, on the bench, of the fo lowing ex-
pression—" By God, I don't understand these populanit)-hunt-
ing magistrates." If that were true, the matter ought to be
inquired into, and taking also his general conduct into con-
sideration, it would be a question whether he ought to be suf-
fered to remain any longer on the bench.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said he saw an account of
what the Hon. Gentleman had alluded to, in the public news-
papers. He was not, however, prepared to give any
information on the subject, but he would communicate with
the Lord Chancellor as to an inquiry into the matter.
Lord EBRINGTON said that Hon. Gentlemen on his side
of the House were not inclined to dispute that Mr. O'Driscoll
had on a previous occasion been very properly dismissed. The
excuse which was then given for his dismissal was, that from
the infirmities of his age, and not of his temper, he was inca-
pable of continuing his dutie'. He thought that dismissal
ought to have taught him a lesson to preserve a better guard
over his temper.
Dr. BOWRING would wish to know whether the negotia-
tion that had been going on between the Post-office autho-
rities of this country and Sweden, that had been for some time
discontinued, had been renewed.
Mr. CARDWELL said he was not aware that any proposi-
tion had been made for renewing the correspondence.
INSANE CRIMINALS IN SCOTLAD.
Mr. ELLICE begged to call the attention of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to
the case of a person who had lately been convicted of murder
in Scotland. It appeared that the man was found to be insane,
and was acquitted of the charge of murder on that account ; but
notwithstanding that, the unhappy man had been refused ad-
mittance into any lunatic asylum, and he was now in a state of
raging madness. The Hon. Member then read a letter he had
received, stating that the man was in a dying state, yet there
was no accommodation for him in the prison in which he was
confined—namely, that of Cupar, in Fife.
Sir J. GRAHAM. said ke was aware that this was indeed
a melancholy case ; but, unfortunately, by the law of Scot-
land, the man could not be removed from Scotland. By the
same law, no public lunatic asylum could be compelled to take
him in, and no private one would. The man was at present in
prison, where he was to remain during the Queen's pleasure,
and could not be removed ; but all proper eare should be taken
of him, and further than that he (Sir J. Graham) could not
interfere.
Mr. ELLICE could only state to the House what his in-
formant had told to him. He said that there was a ward in
the first Penitentiary in which lunatics could be received.
Mr. ESCOTT wished to put a question to the Noble Lord
( Lord Jocelyn) in relation to a case which involved great in-
dividual hardship, as well as an important general question.
He wished to ask whether any Government return had been
received from Bombay, referring to the ease of Lieutenant
Collins, who had been tried by a court-martial in that Presi-
dency, and illegally dismissed the service of the East India
Company—whether the Court of Directors and the Noble
Lord did not think that if this decision were illegal—if it were
unjust, full reparation might not be made to the individual who
had been so dismissed by this illegal sentence ?
Lord JOCELYN said that, by the last dispatches received
some weeks since, it was determined on that the case of
Lieutenant Collins should be reconsidered. The Government
had not since that time received any official information that
the subject had been so re-considered, and therefore he
was unable to satisfy the Hon. Member on the matter in
question.
Mr. COLLETT said that, before withdrawing his amend-
ment, he should wish to be assured that a House would be
made on Wednesday.—(Laughter, and " Oh, oh.") If he
were not so assured, he should press the House to a division.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took
place, the original motion being carried.
Mr. CHAPMAN presented a petition against certain clauses
in the Merchant Seamen's Act.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Liverpool
on the subject of Lord John Russell's resolutions. The peti-
tioners stated that some of the resolutions were objectionable, in-
asmuch as they had no reference to the extension of the franchise.
He begged leave to present a petition, signed by three
thousand silk handloom weavers in Middleton and its vicinity,
expressing their great distress consequent upon the want of
a law to protect their labour; and also a petition from the Pro-
testant Association of Cork, praying the House to withdraw
all support to Maynooth College.
A petition was then presented from the Wesleyan Metho-
dists of the county of York, against the use of spirituous
liquors.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON presented a petition from the
working classes of Manchester, complaining of the want of
drainage and sewers, and praying for sanatory regulations.
Mr. FERRAND presented several petitions, having refe-
rence to the resolutions of Lord John Russell ; one from the
delegates of artisans in Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester,
complaining of the increase of machine power, by which many
of them were thrown out of bread ; also calling the attention
of the House to the Fields Garden Bill, and praying for some
provision in it which would save them from dying in a union
workhouse. Also petitions from the inhabitants of Hartlepool,
who complained that they had been deprived of many of their
most valuable privileges, amongst others of votes in the election
of the Corporation.
CONDITION OF Tim LABOURING CLASSES.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said, Sir, I rise to
bring forward a motion of which I have given notice, and
which embraces a subject of vast extent, and one of the highest
importance. I would despair of being able to bring this
question on with any effect, were it not that the subject was one
which has occupied much of the public attention for some
years past ; and, in bringing it forward now, 1 look for the as-
sistance of this House, in the consideration and elucidation of

those facts and opinions which have been already elicited in re-
ference to it. For my own part, Ido not profess to have suffi-
cient confidence in myself to be able to deal with this subject
of such great importance as it deserves ; but I perceive, that in
regard to it, the Government are not prepared to come forward
with any proposition ; that no other Member of this House has
taken it into consideration ; and that various views and
opinions have been expressed out of doors in regard to the mea-
sures that the Legislature should deem it proper to adopt, by
which to improve the condition of the labouring classes. Sir,
I do consider it a matter of great importance, that this House
should have before it not only all the information that could
be got in reference to any measure which may

be Pi:oposed to be adopted for the permanent int-
provement of the condition of the labouring classes, but also
whatever you may be able to learn from the expression of the
opinions or persons who have given their attention to the ques-
tion, and the views which they may have taken of the various
plans that may from time tG time have been proposed for the
approbation of the public, because while, in my view, some of
those propositions may have appeared to be sound, others may
appear to have been based upon erroneous views of what
should be beneficial for the public interest; and therefore, if

not taken up in a determined manner, a measure may be
brought before this House that would receive general acqui-
escence for want of a better, or it may be that such a measure
would be presented, on which a negative could not be given
with satisfaction, or an affirmative with safety.—(Hear,hear.)
Sir, I must here say a few words more as to the intention of
this motion. Had I been of opinion that any such measure

would be brought forward by her Majesty's Government, I
would have taken care not to have done so ; but as things stand
at present, when all legislative means of this sort must
originate with the Government—when tho present Adminis-
tration has taken from this House to itself all attempts at legis-

lotion, even upon minor importance, and have declared, more-
over, that whether in office or out, they will be responsible for
all measures of legislation which they may pass, affecting the
condition of the country. Under these circumstances it would
have been idle of me to have taken upon myself to bring before
this House any measure of this sort. In my view the reso-
lutions which I bring forward are closely connected together.
I am of opinion that if the Government at the present moment
wished to propose a measure useful to the country, and tending
to the improvement of the condition of the people, they should
consider all the subjects which are mentioned in these reso-
lutions: An Hon. Baronet addressed to me a question to-night,
as if he considered that these resolutions were totally separate
and distinct questions. Sir, I think it of importance that the
House should have brought before it the whole of this subject,
not only that they may consider any one measure in it which
they may think proper to adept for the purpose of improving
the condition of the labouring classes, but also that we may
learn, from the opportunity thus afforded, the opinions of men
of experience and weight as to the various plans which have
been from time to time proposed for the acceptation of Parlia-
ment. Whilst, in my opinion, some of those views are per-
fectly sound, and would tend to improve the condition of the
country, there are others which are founded on erroneous
principles. Upon mistaken notions of the powers of the Legis-
lature to promote the happiness of the people, and which, if in-
dulged in, would lead to consequences entirely different from
those anticipated ; my opinion in general is, that you should
endeavour to free trade from restrictions—to relieve industry
from those trammels which were chiefly placed on it by the
Legislature, but that in so doing, owing to the legislation of
the past, and owing to the present state of the country, it
would be necessary to adopt other measures accompanying those
measures far the relief of industry. And at the same time, it
is my opinion that the great subject of education and instruc-
tion ought to form a part of the deliberations of Government,
and of the measures brought before the House; and if any gen-
tleman tells me that this subject seems little connected with
those that I have mentioned in these resolutions, and that they
are separate and distinct, I beg leave to tell him why I differ from
him. I think we cannot expect that any measure proposed for
the general education of the people would be attended with
success unless we improve the physical condition of the people.
Hear.) hay, Sir,that I do not think that men struggling to
obtain the subsistence necessary to support life, are able or
willing to make those exertions which would be requisite for
giving an education to their children. Therefore, generally
speaking, I should say that, along with the measure for the
improvement of education—assuming that to be your object--
you should endeavour to improve the physical condition of the
people.—( Hear, hear.) And, to bring this matter into de-
tail, I hold in my hand a paper that was signed by Mr. Ash-
worth in 1840, in which is given a table, showing the earnings
and expenditure of four different families, each consisting of a
man, his wife, and four children. In the first,' the weekly
earnings Here ss. 6d. ; in the second, 10s. 6d.; in the third,
15s. 6d. ; in the fourth, 265. 6d. In the first case, where the
earnings were only be. 6d., it would be found that the greater
part, in fact nearly the whole of that sum, was consumed in
providing bread, flour, oatmeal, and potatoes for these six in-
dividuals—food which was absolutely necessary for their sub-
sistence. If I look at the second case, where the earnings
are 10s. 6d., I find money expended for soap and candles,
clothing, and some further expenditure for other matters
which afford revenue to the State. If I turn to the third case,
where the earnings are 15s. 6d., I find a consumption of tea
and coffee, contributions towards a sick society, thereby show-
ing a certain degree of prudence and forethought. And when
I come to the fourth instance, where the earnings are 265. 6d.
for six persons, I there find a further sum of 2s.
for clothing, 6d. for education, 6d. for a sick society,
and ls. 4cl. for savings.—( Hear, hear.) These details show,
as appears to me, that it is only when the condition of the
labouring classes is comfortable, that you can expect prudence,
at least, the ability which enables them to follow out the dic-
tates of prudence, and the means of obtaining education for

of 50,000 head of cattle was a great benefit to the country. If
this be so, then I cannot see any distinction between the impor-
tation of 50,000 head of cattle, and a million quarters of corn.
We do not find that when the price of corn is high, wages
correspond with it, as many of the operative classes believe.
A Blr. Dent, who had written on the subject, amongst much
that was' theoretical and speculative, has given a table
of wages in relation to the price of corn, from which I shall
read a few extracts to the House. The calculations were

made from 1792, and grounded upon a similar estimate to that
made by Mr. Malthus, of allowing six pecks of wheat for each
labourer. In 1795 the wages of a labourer were Bs. 6d. a-week,
and the price of bread 82s. 3d. per quarter. In 1801 wages
were from Bs. 6d. to 10s. : price of wheat 118 s. 3d. In 1821
wages were 9s. 6d., price of wheat 535. 6d., being only 6d.
less in wages than the highest average in 1821. In 1834
wages were 10s., and wheat 465. 2d. In 1810 wages were
10s., and wheat 665. 4d.; and in 1841 wages were 10s. This
will show that the high price of grain is not
accompanied by a corresponding high rate of wages. I will
now proceed to show the probable effects of the importation of
foreign corn. It is my belief that it will not lead to such an
excess; of importation as many think, and that although the
price of corn may not be so high as it has hitherto been, it
will lead to a general improvement in the cultivation of the
land, improve the demand for labour, and advance the inte-
rests of all parties concerned. With regard to what should be
adopted instead of the present law, various propositions have
been brought forward before the House. In bringing forward
my resoluti ms my object is not so much to propose a remedy
as to state the true condition of the country. But if I
were called upon to propose one, it woulit not be that which I

weed, and who were therefore in a state of affluence and wealth
One of them told me he was skilled as much as any man in the
trade, but with all his exertions he was only able to provide him-
self with meat for dinner during one day in the week. Such
was the case of the persons affected by the measure that had
been introduced. 1 will say, that to introduce changes among
these men was hardly fair, unless you introduced measures of a
corresponding nature among the members of another class,
who were represented by Peers of noble descent, covered with
honours, having great weight both in and out of Parliament,
and who were most powerful to resist the alteration. I have the
opinion of Adam Smith as my authority, who stated that he
would include one party within the same law of restriction as
the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the late President of
the Board of Trade, has shown the effect of these restrictions,
as far as our own manufactures were concerned; and I will
take out of his book some instances, which will show how
little alarm was to be experienced, when it was most expected.
The article of bonnets produced 13,0001. in 1840, and in 1813
and 1844 this amount was reduced to 12,0001. With respect
to cork, a duty of 7s. per pound had been imposed on manu-
factured corks. The duty was reduced to 10s. per pound on
the wood, and to Is. per pound on the manufactured
corks. The amount of cork had been augmented, and
only 2i per cent., in proportion to the raw ma-
terial, was introduced in a manufactured state. The
Noble Lord instanced a few other articles, which, where
the duty was high, had been diminished in consumption ;
and where, on the contrary, the duty was small, a corres-
ponding increase had taken place. These returns, continued
the Noble Lcrd, show how very reason there was for
the manufacturers to be alarmed at the changes which then
took place. This showed with respect to all manufactured
articles, that we were able to stand in competition with foreign
nations, and that nothing was to be dreaded from the skill
which foreign manufacturers might exhibit in their fabrication.
With respect to foreign manufactures, the duties had been re-
duced to a great extent. The bootmakers and ropemakers were
not much considered when it was announced that they would be
totally ruined. The right principle remained to be proved. The
duties were reduced within that reasonable compass that com-
petition could enter the field against thorn. I say, then, if this
principle is right—if it is right to reduce duties within that
compass—let us abandon altogether the principle of the pro-
tective system, and reduce all duties within that compass. In
acting upon this principle with respect to any article of menu-
facture, if you do not propose to abolish protection with re-
spect to one article, you will be in a similar position to what
you were placed in with regard to the tariff of 1842. If that
tariff imposes a duty of 20 per cost. I maintain that it is an
extravagant tax. I consider that the principle is altogether
false, and we should abandon it as a useless problem of legisla-
tion. I now come to that great question upon which so much
discussion has taken place in the country—l ro'er to the ques •
tion of the corn-laws. As I have adverted on this and other
subjects—on the striking changes that had taken place during
this session of Parliament—l will advert to what has been the
policy of the country with respect to them during the last cen-
tury. There was, as Adam Smith says, a duty in the last cen-
tury against the importation of foreign corn ; but, as during
the greater part of that century this was an exporting country,
the people had no great advantage of the lowest price of corn,
as the corn sent to foreign parts found the best market ; but
towards the latter end of the century, with the increase of the
population, it was found necessary to prohibit that exportation.
If they had acted on sounder principles that course would not
have been adopted. When we became an importing instead of
an exporting country, it was considered necessary that the corn.
laws should be revised, and to preserve our interests a reasonable
protection should be given to oorn. The protection given ex-
tended to 48s. per quarter, and consisted of a high duty upon all
corn under that priee. In 1791 another change took place, and
Mr. Pitt said, in the course of the debate on the question, that
if a protective duty was put on corn up to 50s. per quarter, it
would be quite sufficient; but other opinions prevailed at the
time, and the protection was carried up to 545. It was over
505., and that was in effect a prohibitory duty. Such a duty
as this is quite different from the present system, and let us sae
how the change took place. During the time ef war and the
years of scarcity, corn rose to a very high price, and at the
same time the currency becoming depreciated, the City gentle-
men declared that the 545. was not a sufficient price for corn,
and they prevailed on Mr. Pitt, in 1804, to raise the price at
which protection should cease. In 1815, when depreciation
was carried to its greatest extent, it was proposed that instead
of 54e., which was the utmost price to which protection was
extended, that 80s. should be the price at which protection
should commence. I consider that although it might be ne-
cessary to check for a time the sudden flood of importation, the
introduction of that law was as fatal as the measure of 1797.
—( Hear.) We have been suffering ever since from the
effects of that law. Many years it was considered that this
law was not sufficient. The effect ef the price of 80s. was
net liked, and another alteration of the whole took place,
which it was not necessary to refer to, in 1828, and another
scheme of corn legislation was proposed, which had the high
authority of Mr. Huskisson. The proposition was, that there
should be a high duty imposed when corn was low, but the
duty was to be gradually diminished in proportion as the price
was increased. I thought it was somewhat desirable on that
head. Mr. Canning said, on the introduction of the measure,
that at certain times there was a too plentiful supply of corn,
and at other times we had been suffering from the want o
importation, and he proposed this measure, as it would adapt
itself to the price of corn, and tend to give a stated price, and
would consult the interest of all parties concerned. I say that
it was a plausible scheme • and for my own part I supported
the Bill; and altogether my opinion was rather in
favour of the fixed price. We have bad experience since
and I think it has been shown that the system was founded in
error, and that it failed in giving a stated price. Even sup-
posing the general principle is correct, or that there are some
particular reasons for imposing duties upon corn, it was very
evident that the gradual or sliding scale was not calculated to
have the desired effect. It was obvious that the present sys-
tem, as now carried on in corn, made the entire trade to par-
take more of the character of a gambling house than the fair
dealings of honest merchants, and some had suffered severe
losses in their speculations ; and we had experience of this
fact within the last few years. According to the returns
moved for by the Hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Miles), it
appears that the operation of the law, as altered by the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, is
much the same as the law of 1828. It was shown by those
papers that since 1840 as before, the quantity of corn
introduced was greatly increased at different times,
especially during the three harvest months. In the
year 1840 the number of quarters of wheat introduced in
the first six months of the year was 876,879 quarters, the
quantity during the three harvest months wr.s 1,587,000. In
1841, during the first six months, which was a year of scarcity,
2,750,06 c) quarters ; the three harvest months 2,343,258. In
1842 in the first six months 305,000; in the three harvest
months 2,663,160. Thus showing that the tendency of the
law was to induce speculators to hold back till they knew the
produce of the harvest, in order to derive a benefit from the
great rise in price. In the last year the experience of the law
was remarkable. In the last year the price of corn was not
high, sufficiently high eneugh to enable persons to introduce
it into the country in any large amount at remu-
nerating prices. In February the price of wheat
was 535. 3d. per quarter, and the quantity cleared, 2,725
quarters; in March, 565. 3d., the quantity cleared, 3,472
quarters ; and in July, 545., the quantity cleared, 427,623
quarters. The only system that can benefit the consumer, and
lead to a stability in the law, will be such as will range the
price from 565. to 645. and 665, per quarter. That is the
only sufficient price to allow for the importation of corn, but
less than that will stop and arrest it. I have the evidence of
an assistant poor-law commissioner, who, in a report made at
the time of the bad harvest, in 1838, declares that the distress
then existing was much aggravated by the high price of the
corn, and that a lower rate of price, instead of operating in-
jnriously, would have much benefited the employers, in
enabling them to improve the wages and living of their
labourers, or inducing farmers to employ greater exertions
in the cultivation of their lands. This report, in addition to
the other evidence I have adduced, goes to prove that the pre-
sent law is opposed not only to all correct commercial prin-
ciples, bet to the interests of the farmers.—(Cheers.) But
I will put another question to the House. Does not this evi-
dence suggest to you that protection is an evil? Does it not
lead you •to behold in it a check to improvement in agricul-
ture, and an enemy to both landowners and farmers._
(Cheers.) I may refer to-the silk manufacture as an illustra-
tion of the influence of monopoly. While under the protec-
tive system during a century and a-half the machinery em-
ployed was of the most inefficient and imperfect character ;
now, under an improved system, it had kept pace in this
respect with all the other great branches of manufacturing
industry. Se is it with respect to the farmer. The amount
ef protection given him only tended to make him
an imperfect, slovenly agriculturist, and the way to make him
skilful and successful in his important calling was by the re-
moval of that restrictive system on which he had hitherto leant
for support. I hold in my hand the evidence of a gentleman
who made a motion in this House in 1830 respecting the sta-
tistics of the country. That gentleman was Mr. Davenport,
who said that he had taken great pains to improve the land in
his possession, and out of a quantity of land that formerly paid
5001, a year, he received 8001., in consequence of these im-
provements. That gentleman further stated that a great part
of England was covered with weeds, and in a state of waste ;
that the leases were fenced in with restrictions, and bolts, and
bars, so as to interfere with the free energy of the tenants;
that the land was generally occupied by tenants without capital ;
men careless how they treated the soil, and the landowners
were indifferent so long as they got their rents.—(Hear, hear. )
Te advance agriculture in the way it ought to be advanced,
a union of capital, skill, and labour, is required. Such has
been already done in manufactures, and the results were well
known to all, so will it be in farming, if the same means are
employed. Similar causes will produce similar results. No
one can doubt but that if foreign growers were allowed to send
their produce into this country, it would infuse a now spirit
into our agricultural system. It will sharpen our skill and
energy, and enlarge our capabilities.—(Cheers.) The present
time is most propitious for a change in the system. The
commutation of tithes had lately taken place, and a
considerable burden taken from off the landed interest, so that
now there was every opportunity under a proper state of the
law for the employment of capital and the exercise of skill.—
( Hear, hear.) It was complained that owners and occupiers
of land were not satisfied with the present system. But let
them abandon protection, and they would find their benefit in
the improved markets which would be opened up to them.
They would find their advantage of being in a rich country,
where commerce and manufactures were flourishing, and where
employers being enabled to pay better wages for labour, from the
improved facilities given them, would thereby cause a great
increase in the consumption of agricultural produce.—( Hear. )
But it was said that if corn were made cheap, wages would be
reduced. Taking this fact for granted, supposing wages were
reduced to a certain amount, still so long as the real wages
were not reduced in relation to the price of produce, an advan-
tage would be gained by the great impetus that would be given
to the employment of labour by the change in the law. But
if, on the ether hand, wages were not reduced, a great benefit
would at once be given to the artisan in enabling him to com-
mand an increase of the comforts of life; and in either way
the labouring classes would be benefited. The Noble. Lord the
President of the Board of Trade had said that the introduction