The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

THE StTN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 19 1842

th great ability and talent. There are two arguments
hich those persons make use of, to which every defer-
ice ought to be paid. The first is whether a change
the law may not be prejudicial to the agriculturists ;
id the second, whether there may not be some claims
i their part, for which they are entitled to com-
eisation. These are fair considerations for those
ho call for a total repeal—but they have not
Trlooked those claims.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
hose who advocate a total repeal are represented as
olent, but they have the highest authority to justify them
their views.—(Hear, hear.) The first authority I
ill produce is that of a statesman, such as I would wish
see in this country at the present day, and who
as eminent for talent and for character,
ianrctli
r everything that could create respect. I mean
ranville.—(Hear, hear.) If all those evils which
lon.
antlemen predict would be the result of a repeal
ose laws, they must have been perceived by him.s
id in 1815, "1 object to any such lawf (the Cor- Corn-law)
insepassed. The great practical rules freedomoto
the traaSep
culiarly, and on stronger
He says, further, " That the
in
rn, than to any other."
nefits expected from the law could only have the
Oct of giving a bounty to the grower of corn,
t you cannot do that without levying a tax on
consumer."—(Hear.) Such was- Lord Granville's
inion in 1815. In 1820 we had the principal mer-
ants in London, and some of the most cautious and
lculating men Or business, presenting a petition
this House on the subject, and when they did so
ey did not think they were endangering the
pital and interests of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
tat was a petition agreed to at a meeting in the City of
sndon, by some of the most respectable merchants, and
'esented to that House. There was a Report drawn
) the year after the petition had been presented, to
hich he should next refer. The Committee who drew
) that Report referred to two periods ; the one when
gislation of all kinds had been resorted to in order to
iprove the value of agricultural produce, the other when
imperatively speaking, the trade was less free. The
.st period was from the beginning of the last century
the year 1773 ; the other from the year 1773 to the
!ax 1791, when the trade was under restrictiens. The
immittee said that " they could not contrast the cir
imstances during the two periods, during the first
which there was a comparative stagnation
agriculture, while during the second there
as a comparative growth and improvement, without
)knowledging that protection did not promote the in-
rests of agriculture." That was the opinion of a body
men strongly interested in maintaining a protective
stem if it could benefit themselves. The Committee
!nt on to say that " they doubted whether the best
undation for agricultural prosperity did not consist
an abstinence, on the part of the Legisla-
re, from any interference with the trade in corn."
to next authority to which I shall refer for an aboli-
n of all protection to agriculture, is that of some
ricultural proprietors 'themselves ; and I beg to
to that some of the most estimable, the most
elligent, and experienced proprietors, who have
-en the most attention to agriculture as a science,
flare that they disapprove of all protection.
notes those are some of the the largest of our landed
iprietors, Earl Spenser, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Lei-
;ter, and others—all men of the greatest property in
a country. All of them denounce the system of protec-
t as unfavourable to the prosperity of agriculture. There
no public meeting held in this country or in Scotland
which some occupier of land does not come forward,
d declare that his interest is directly opposed to the
sent system, and that he asks for nothing better than
perfectly free trade That has been the case
the last ten years. I have recently read
veral speeches to that effect, and many farmers
to have given their evidence before a Committee of the
ruse o:COMMOIV, have expressed the same Opinions.
-an only say, that in a very extensive correspondence
th which the people have favoured me in consequence
the course I have taken on this subject, I have found
e who have written with such bitterness against the
.1-laws as the farmers.—(Hear.) And when country
.alemen commit their thoughts to paper, they are
illy worth con,idering. in some of these letters they
1 me that they consider the people have acted most
-tuously, in suffering the imposition of the Corn-laws
long as they have.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I will refer
an authority, which I have no doubt is known :to the
ght Hon. Bart., the Member for Dorchester. I will refer
a work written by a Cumberland Landowner.—(Hear,
tr.) lie invites the attention of the landed interest to
) facts he states.
3:r J. GRAHAM—It is not my work.—(A laugh.)
slr. VILLIERS—I know that the Right Hon. Baro-
; is not the author, but lie is acquainted with him.
at person states that he has no interest to gra-
y, that he has no wish in what he states but •
lore of truth ; and his firm opinion is, that
free trade in corn is for the real interest of
) landowner, and was the only safe policy to be
opted by the State, because the more prosperous the
()plc the greater would be the rent-rolls of the land-
els. Another publication to which I will refer is one
,m a landowner in Surrey ; he states that the landowners
the only persons benetitted by the tax; that it presses
avily on the labourer ; and he comes to the conclusion
at the abolition entirely of the Corn-laws is a measure
it oily of justice but of necessity.
_He states that he is
mself the owner of a large quantity of land, and that
feels sure that not an acre of it would be rendered;useless
y throwing open the trade in corn, because its effect
dl be given as a stimulus to labour. The more it is
intended that corn is cheap when the ports are opened,
e m')re they prove what a nuisance the present Corn-
ays are. 1 will now quote another landowner in the
ace which I represent. lie has given a most cautious
insideration to the subject, and his conclusion is, that
they had a free trade in corn, wheat would be sold
from 455. to 48s. He says he entertained no appre-
)nsions for our home agriculture, and, in conclusion,
ys there would be a larger consumption, and a larger
mend for such articles as milk, butter, and meat,
a necessary consequence of the population in-
Asing and heifer" well employed, and that the pre-
it law, instead of being a benefit, is of infinite
,chief to agriculture. I might, Sir, quote many
her authorities, persons who have given much
ought to this subject, and aho are not connected
th agriculture. But I will refer only to two, because
ay have been quoted as authorities by the Right
:mow-able Baronet opposite ; indeed, I my-self, as
)11 as the Right Honourable Baronet, have often
ed them. They are Mr. M'Culloch and Mr. Tooke.
am not going to quote them for all their opinions, but
it for those arguments which I want to prove—
aughter)—that nothing is to be feared for agriculture
on a total repeal of these laws. Mr. M'Culloch says,
rho truth is, agriculture has nothing to fear from a
sal abandonment and repeal of the Corn-laws ;
will not throw an acre of land out of culti-
Lion, and will not sensibly affect rents."
nother writer, whom I believe the Right Hon. Baronet
ill regard as an authority on this question, Mr. Tooke,
ys, " If there was a perfect free-trade in corn there
ould be a range of prices of about 455. a quarter for
heat, which forms no just cause for apprehending a
minution of arable land, unless, indeed, it should, front
n) increase of the population, be applied to more
rofitable purposes; but even if this should be the case,
ferias no excuse for perpetuating in the country
II the evils of the present system." What the
light Hon. Baronet quoted Mr. M'Culloch for
-as to prove there might be danger in repealing the
iws, inasmuch as the seasons are very similar
11 over the world. Mr. M'Culloch says :
No one is more alive to the circumstance that be-
veen certain degrees of longitude and latitude
xtending over the Continent of Europe there is
prevalence of weather of the same character, whes
icr it be propitious or unpropitious."—(Hear, hear.)
lut this, instead of being an argument against free trade,
lan argument in favour of it. It shows us that we
ught to extend the radius of our supply from
lie neighbouring Continent to Egypt and the Medi-
Tranean in one direction, and to America in
ie other.—(Hear, hear.) Our taking that advice would
ready mitigate the evil of unfavourable seasons.—
:fear, hear.) These theoretical writers put corn
; between 40s. and 455. as the probable price, and they
eve supposed that, under those circumstances, the agri-
ilturist would sutler little injury. But, Sir, let us look to
Le evidence of practical men, of the agriculturists them-
Ives. Before the Committee of this House, in 1836, Mr.
homas Bennet was examined. Being asked by Sir James
" What would you expect for prices for
▪ next seven years ?" he answered, "If I was
Ding to take a. farm myself, I would not expect wheat
e be more than 455. He was then asked " Will the
snants of the Duke of Bedford, who have lately taken
he farms you had, be able to pay, the rent at 453. the
uarter ?" Answer, " I believe they will."—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL—Under the present Corn-law?
Mr. VILLIERS—Yes ; and I read those extracts
o show that the total abolition of the Corn- laws
voiild not bring wheat lower than what men of
!xperience, and practical agriculturists, consider a
'easonable price under the present law.—(Hear, hear.)
Another question put to the witness referred to barley,
and another to Scotch mutton, and his answer was, " The
erices of all these are regulated by the demand of the
nanufacturers."—(Hear.) Here is the evidence of prac-
ical agriculturists, that there is no danger to agri-
culture in the repeal of the Corn-laws.—(Cries of
Hear, hear.") Sir, that is the case which I in
favour of my motion, that their trade in food should be
7ree.—(Hear, hear.) But, t
mthere is another argu-
ment offered on the others side, that there are ex-
clusive burthens on the
giving exclusive lands which justify the
it an
Legislature int protection.—(Hear.)
grounds
[ say these are no for the
boe the
f therS'orn-laws. The Right Hun.
personification of the landed interest of this country. I
t believe there is no person in whom they 'place
much implicit confidence as they do in the
Right Honourable Baronet, and he said that
f the malt tax were left, and if there was a reas,,nAble
:ortlinutation of tithe, the repeal of the Corn-laws s'muld
ie opposed by Cie u;e of Commons. A large portion of
he public right.; have been cast upon these measures. It
s said, that if the Corn-laws were repealed the people
vould be relieved from other burthens too. But I want
o know, does any person dispute that in consequence of
he malt-tax the people are not obliged to pay
or their beer; so in the same way, in consequence of the
are obliged to pay more for their
7orn-laws, they
ed ? I contend that there is no local charge that is
lot made fbrlocal purposes ; and I am sure the charges are
wade fur the benefit of those who arc liable to them—.
ighway rates, police rates, and all other public charges
ire imposed for the benefit of those who pay them. I
relieve that my own constituents pay 1,200/. a-year for
inch charges, and a.l to tithes, I believe it is the fact that
1140144ksoroprietors of the county are the owners of at
7:Zrfourth of the tithe of this county.—(Hear.)
entitie&tot%lne you must either admit that you are not
paeAsation, or else how that you are ; and
y• uosticlo9orovret-;iantitled to coimpenSation, it is then
na instelessu - vroptn.Ltnlie. compensation proi osed is
tthe biirthens said to
be endured by the landedi interest. I have heard

something said about protection. The Right Honour- 1 spected such arguments, he condemned those speeches NvWcii
able Baronet talked of the necessity of protection to had neither moderation for their means, nor he believed,
what he at one time called the domestic interests of the justice
u
time the native industry of the for their object. Ha contended that the great object
country ; another
Corn-
country ; and again, the great interest of the
laws, to secure a lower rate of wages, adducing as an authority,
Mr. G. F. Young, and another Hon. Member of that House.
country. We ought to know what this protection
1 111 r. Young stated that he had conversed much with manutac-
means, whether it is indemnity, or the support of a sys-
tem which cannot support itself. I think it is incum- tutors on this point, and he had been told that 19-20ths
of that class had this object in view. The question for the
bent on you to show, that if they are entitled to indem- people was, whether they would have a moderately high rate
nity, that that indemnity is just. Protection ought of prices and high wages, or low prices and low wages. The
to be universal in its application ; bat to pro- Noble Lord also read an extract from a work by Lord Fitz-
tect the landed proprietor, and not to protect the william, which he considered bore out the same view of the
labourer, is sheer injustice. You do not attempt to pro- subject. He would refer to one more case-that of two cities
tect the labourer from the improvements in machinery. on the Continent, Warsaw and Amsterdam.lve
In
kththee former
Why, then, seek to protect the landholder ? Why icnitJ,
etlhae ssesprieweereof
gceornner 11 as vnerya owr,y
ile l
seek to prevent the community from obtaining their whereas in Amsterdam,a i di
wherey the price
stressed state;
of corn was high,
) food from better soils than you yourselves possess ? the labourers and their families were comfortably fed and
I was looking the other day into Humboldt's Travels, clothed. Now, such being the case, he (Lord Mahon) wished
where it is mentioned that persons who had been in the to know how the theory of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite could
habit for two centuries of carrying people across the be supported?; He believed the supply of corn should be sup.
Andes on their backs, had petitioned the Parliament plemental and subsidiary. He was much surprised to hear the
Praying against the roads which were being constructed statement of the Noble Lord the late Colonial Secretary, on the
across the mountains. I shall now refer to an extraor- subject. The Noble Lord said, that if we were depend nt on fhoreign
Binary argument brought forward the other night by the
sc.oouunit(riiensotfor ad supply
t ou fb
be cotton,independent lhat w as
sf
no
themreason
regarded" . y
e
Member for Kent ;it was, that the landholders of the n
corn. Butenif eiatvewuerre a disadvantage to be & pendent on
country paid by far the largest proportion of the taxes. corn.
for cotton, would it not also be a disadvantage to have to
Before I enter into that, I must call the attention ofthe depend on them for corn?-( Hear, hear ) We ought, then,
House to the petition of a labouring man, who sets forth to aim at independence. The Noble Lord, the late Secretary
what share of the taxes he bears. The petitioner is Win. for Foreign Affairs, said this was a childish idea. He talked
Black : he says he uses per week 2oz. of tea, 2oz. of of the rich productions of other countries, and then asked
coffee, Boz. of sugar, Boz. of butter, quarter's of brandy ; why should our miserable laws stand between our people and the
the price of these articles, without the Custom-house and bounty of Providence ?- ( Hear, hear.) Th'larigutahgee mightihle
Excise duty, would be 2s. 44d. ; they do cost him, how- do very well for otherh Members ; buthosewale could-
? (Ilear,hear)
ever, 7s. 7id., being for taxes ss. 3d. a-week, or 131. 13s.
-for surely
after taailklinfist
aurs,hvmoteeutosr a sliding
pliedas much to a fixed
6d. a- year ; and this man receives only 1 ls. a-week.- t
dut a slidingg scale."( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
These are articles of almost necessary consumption
Ony referring to an annual register he would find that the
for a working man, and when we see what he pays,
duty,
byhis'Right
78/. per cent. taxes, let us hardly hear that the ilon so .
Friend, much
as higherpro ,than p
osea that
proposed by
the
Duknowe proposed
of
Wellingtons
Ca-
landowners. pay the largest proportion of the taxes binet at the beginning of the year 1828 ; and if he carried his
of this country.. My object in bringing this inquiries further, he would find, however incredulously he
before the House, is to show that there is no ground for might rub his eyes, that Lord Viscount Palmerston was a
that statement. This question has been argued before member of that Cahine'. It might have been supposed that
.he House very fallaciously ; it has been argued as he would not enotnstni n
farue ifrnorna Cthaabtinheetinv:hg tt
fact,cou ldderorpeotisreentsueenht
owners. - (Hear, hear, hear.) I have brought 1
a question between the manufacturers and the land-
oafmtLasuliole;ale h
Loid took place some weeks afterwards, and on
! an entirely different question.-("Hear, hear," from the Minis-
forward this motion many times, but I never
terial benches.) Much had been said with respect to depend-
considered it as a question between those parties. It I ante on foreign supply. He would advert to two instances in
has been computed that there are 30,000 landowners in which such dependence might have led to the most serious con•
thiscountry, and 14,000,000 acres of land, and they are to sequences. First, there was the formidable confederacy of
, maintain that against the interests of the whole community. . European nations to which England was exposed at the time
'lt cannot be contended that the farmers are more into- when Napolean was threatening her with invasion. What
rested in the continuance of the present law would have been the result had England then been dependent
than any other classes of society. There is the lon France, or any other Continental nation for a supply of
same competition amongst them as in the various corn ? Why, even the spirit of the English people, howeverpeenoapbllee,dtihes to
trades of this country, and their profit., therefore, are
outcourageous
aa7nnsdt
the
determined,confederacy
wuuld not
which then existed.-( Hear,
hear.) It was well known that two years ago the Government
subject to the same influence. The Right 110 hold'
Pourable Baronet said that this was a labourer's ques- of France found itself opposed to the Government of this
tion. I agree with him in that, and I regret that country with respect to the affairs of Syria. If, then, France,
the labourers do not see their own interest in reference when placed in hostility to the other nations of Europe, had
to this question. There is no class who have so great been dependent for her supply of food on any other coun-
an interest in having food cheap as the labourers try, would France have been able to place herself in the
of this country.-(Hear, hear.) Every one knows isolated position she had done, and which she considered to be
that the labourers of the United States are in a better consistent with, and due to her honour and dignity ?-( Hear. )
condition than those of England. And why ? Be- Many countries would be disposed, by the price of corn in Erg-
cause there food is cheap. Food being cheap they land, to part w ith th esiraot
stated this own harvestsison the ho
and
authority themselvestto , onn
need not work much, and there is plenty of employment. inferior
grar statedf the loi
grain.
He t
olton, who in one of his reports y
that the
If food were plentiful here, it would be pre-
Member fo
Tuscan States would very probably send the whole of the wheat
cisely the same as though so much land were groan in that country to England. and that their own popula-
added to the country ; and if land were cheap and plenti- tion would be fed OM corn imported from the Enxine. sit also
ful, no one would doubt that the labourers of this country appeared from the report of one of our diplomatic agents in
would be as well off as those of the United States. Sup- Italy that if the English Corn-laws were repealed, the cultiva-
pose a new island were to rise up in our Channel, and tion of wheat in the Menial States would be considerably in-
numbers flocked to it for the purpose of producing food, creased. Thus it was impossible to foresee the amount of corn-
would not the effect be to better the condition of all petition to which the British farmer would be exposed. in the
classes, the produce of the island being exchanged for year 1830, a h'gh authority, Sir Henhry Parnell,
chat:, said that
the necessaries and comforts of life ? (hear, hear.) in his
Canning came
100es.tow,aiesaliwotitthoothheigcoar pricelaw
Corn-laws, s,ohre corn.
that
There is an argument that labourers will be thrown. out m
of employment by the repeal of the Corn-laws, but all 60s. was amfagirepaTice, and that opinion was adopted by the Duke
of Wellington and the present Administration.
this is very vague. I have already quoted authorities to There could
be no doubt that a fair remunernation would be given to the
show that no land would be thrown out of tillage. The farmer, and no more. Mr. Sander', of the Manchester Chamber
Right lion. Baronet said the other night that the value of Commerce said that the rate of freight for corn from the
of the produce of this country was immense, and that we Continent would be from 3s. to 45., and the rate from Ireland
ought to be careful how we dealt with so vast an in- to London was higher. This was the opinion of a member
terest. Now there were 14 millions of arable land in the of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. It was therefore
hontH thoughttoni
tie
scalet
t 0 proposedth
c, toahnneedi
conciliation.
indispensably necessary that agriculture should have protee.
country, which consumes 22 millions of quarters of wheat,
and I think that no more than two, or at the utmost four tion. Heasthfoulfeht
dtheu
received by beg), aalleas a miesaspure
millions would be introduced from a!aroad if you make a !it:
viroonit
hwe
change. To be sure the people would eat a great , ,
1 thought it was better for the agricultural interest to have a
: less amount of protection- with the consent of all parties, than
deal more bread, if, through having more emi to}-merit,
they were able to raise the standard of living. But I main- .
to struggle for a hieh protection against the community.
fain that it will be quite impossible to displace much land -(Hear, hear.) With regard to the manufacturing classes,
in this country. If manufactures should revive, if the ; he thought the proposed measure would be received by them
people are more fully employed, and if the island las one of conciliation. But he would express his hope
flourishes, how can you keep down the valise of that while the agriculturists were willing to meet them in
land ? You can only do it by a sliding seale-(Hear, this spirit of conciliation that the manufacturing classes would
hear, and cheers)-or by oppression, driving the capital
come forward with a similar disposition.-( Hear, hear.) He
out of the country, having to support the people yourselys s. trusted that they would be impressed with the emphatic words
of Curran, who said, that in the course of his life he had seen
But if the people have fair play, who should have so
that agitation had made many rich men poor, but never a poor
much reason to be satisfied as the owner of the soil ? •
, man rich. He did not mean to say that the motion of the
On the other hand, consider what you jeopardise Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was founded on agitation ;
by your present conduct. You hazard the esti- '
i but they had had annual motions for vote by ballot.-(Loud
mation of your countrymen, you endanger the public cheers from the Opposition.) They had also had motions
institutions, you force the people to become politicians, for removing the Bishops from the House of Lords. - (Conti.
and compel them and the middle classes to think that nued cheers from the Oppositim.) Bnt he would say without
the present system is maintained for the benefit of the i any disrespect to any Hon. Gentleman opposite, whom, he
majority of the Legislature. You talk of the multitudes of
doubted not, acted conscientiously in advocating these subjects,
1
1
people that would be sacrificed by a repeal of the Corn-laws. but he felt assured that it would be a long time before they
But really I think the community would not object to , saw either the removal of the Bishops or the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE,_ who was at first
.inaudible. in the
compensation to those who might really suffer. I say now, 1
gallery, said the only object fir which protection was given to
as I said on the question of the import duties, that you :
will always have new claimants ; indeed, you have claim- landowner was, that they were subject to burthens which
\ the other members of the community were not. The rates
ants now who were not born when the law passed in 1815. i usually levied were the poor-rate, the county-rate, and the
Then with respect to its giving employment to the poor, I land-rate. Now, with regard to the poor-rate and the county-
the abolition of monastic institutions was resisted by I rate, it was well known that all property beneficially occupied
the same argument ; it was asked what was to be was subject to these rates, and therefore the landowners only
done for the relief of the poor if they were abo- paid their fair proportion of taxes. Now, for instance, he
lished.-(Hear.) Why that argument was thus met j would take a certain parish in which many Hon. Members
resided, viz., the parish of St. George s, Hanover-square.
by providing for their support, and the Poor-laws sprung
Ile found that in the last year the rates in that
up in consequence.-(Cheers.) But the agricultural
parish amounted to 37,000/ , of which they expended
districts do not afford constant employment for the poor.`)
1 ,0001. in the relief of the poor, and the remaining 21,0001.
According to the last census, 350,000 persons born in the were handed over to the county gentlemen to pay their county
agricultural districts, found employment in towns, so that if rates. With regard to the highway rates, it was well known
were riot for manufactures those people would have been that the inhabitants of towns and the inhabitants of villages
thrown back for support upon the agricultural distrcts, ' raid very large sums in reisair:ng their own highways and
therefore the system does not give constant i streets, as well as the landed proprietors. He found that in
employment.-(Hear, hear.) I shall now conclude, 1 the parish of St. GeorgeN, Hanover-square, they paid no
leaving the Hommaable Gentleman who follows me less a sum than 25,0001. in repaving the streets; and these two
to furnish information on the working of these I SUMS were larger than the county-rates put together. Now,
laws. I oppose them because I consider them h e wished
to see upon what this claim of protection was
wholly unsuited to the present state of society. founded;
interest because
erh ela t h oeurfehbtiohres
tcoou theld shows
tatet o the
lla
House the
landed
, hear. )
I think that we can obtain a sufficient amount of sub- When these taxesw ewerrgefirst imposed in 1793, they wereer put on
sistence by exchanging our manufactured products in this way--namely, that the rates should be from one shilling
for the agricultural products of other countries, and that to four shillings in the pound in proportion to the rental
any measure which prevents that, acts injuriously on our of the country.-( Hear, hear.) It was then estimated
commerce. I therefore move that these duties be now i that the rental of the country was 10,000,0001., and
repealed. When I say now, I mean to mark my opinion the produce of the tax was 2,000,000/., but land shortly after-
that there is no ground for their continuance, and that wards greatly increased in value, in consequence of the trade
no interest would suffer by their repeal ; and to show and commerce of the country increasing, and the landed in•
that my opinion coincides with that of the peti- terests then pressed Parliament to pass an Act, making the
tioners to this House, for the total and imme-
it can be shown that
land- tax then levied perpetual, so that while the rental of the
Blatt, repeal. Of course, if
country increased from ten to forty millions, the land-tax re-
mained. Thus were the landed interests indebted to the public
any great injury would be inflicted by their sudden to the amount of about 8,000,0001. Then, with respect to the
change, there can be no objection to postponing their legacy duty, it was well known that on the decease of any per-
repeal for a short time ; but when we see the resistance son, personal property was heavily taxed, and produced a large
that is made to every kind of change, however gradual, I revenue to the country. It was estimated that if real property
I think the people would be justly chargeable with was subject to the same duty as personal property, the
neglect of their own interest if they did not insist revenue would be increased no less than 1,000,000/.
on immediate justice being done to them ; and 1 a-year, so that these two taxes taken together,
hope that all gentlemen who think that the law caused the landed interest to be indebted to the
ought ultimately to be repealed, however they may ditrer country in the sum of nitre millions sterling.-( Hear,
with me as to the question of immediate repeal, will vote
hear.) He had taken the trouble to look through tarious
for my n.
taxes winch had been repealed since the year 1815. He found
motion.
Mr. OSWALD said that, in rising to address the House, that certain taxes had been repealed, which when levied pressed
only on the landed gentry, while the aggregate of taxes pressed
he did not hope to say anything that might not be better ion the other classes of the community. Those taxes repealed
said by some other Member, but when the House con- amounted to no less a sum than 995,0001. per annum, so that
\ 1 sidered the importance of the subject, he trusted it would with this sum added to the other the landed gentry had con-
form his apology fur trespassing upon its attention. He trived to keep ten millions of money in their pockets, while the
would, however, he prevented from addressing them at . remainder of the public were paying heavier taxes than for-
much length,%fier the luminous anddetailed speech in which the I utterly. But even supposing there tray be some ground for
Hon. Member, who had just sat down, addressed them.- ! protection to the landowner, in consequence of corn coming
( Hear, hear.) He rose for the purpose of protesting i from other countries, they had protection in this way-if they
against the new and crude scale of the Right Honourable ' admitted three bushels of corn he believed the estimated expenses
Gentleman opposite, and recording iris opinion against would he from 6s. to 75.; but three bushels of corn were grown
the Corn, and all other laws which fettered the free ,on every acre of land, and thus would they have a protection
importation of grain.-( Hear, hear.) He considered it be- 1 of nezrly a guinea imposed on every acre of land, and he (Mr.
yond human power to legislate on the subject.-( Hear, hear.) ' Elphinstone) thought that was sufficient protection. But this
All attempts to do so had hitherto failed,and he believed that the subject was inquired into in a Committee on agricultural dis-
plan of the Right Hon. Baronet would fail also. He (Mr. tress, when every witness was cross-examined as to the nature
Oswald) stood on the broad ground that no one class of the of the burdens imposed on the landholder. The only answers
community had a right to place burdens on the other classes were-" You ought to repeal the window tax and the riding-
for its own individual aggrandisement.-( Cheers.) Any such horse duty, and if these two taxes were repealed, it would
proceeding he held to be unjust, and as impolitic as it was , afford a great protection to the landed interest." One great ob-
jection to any tax on corn was, that it pressed heavily on the
unjust.-(Hear, hear.) Monopoly was the robbing of the
many for the benefit of the few-(Cheers)-and he believed t poor, and was not felt by the rich. Take the case of an
that in the end those who enjoyed undue advantage over the i agricultural labourer in the country round Hertford (as we un-
other classes would not gain by, it. It was as impolitic ; derstood), whose income was about 261. a year. Suppose
for those who gained as for those who suffered to 1 the man had a wife and four children. The price of the 41b.
maintain the present law. - (Hear, hear.) He be- loaf in this country was 9d., and 6d. on the Continent; that is
lieved that all the Acts passed, as it was said, for the to say, on every 41b. of bread that is consumed by the egricul-
protection of corn, had ended in disappointment, and he be- tural labourer, 3d. is to be paid to the landowner. The la-
lieved that the plan of the Bight Hon. Baronet would meet bouring man and his family consumed 41bs. of bread every day
with the same fate. He believed it would grievously disap- in the year, at least they ought to do so, and thus the tax paid
point the landowners, while it would continue to inflict great to the landowner of this country by the poor man amounted to '
evils, and losses, and misery, upon the mercantile and mann- 31. or 41., or 171. per cent. on his income. The Noble Lord
facturing interests of the country.-(Hear, hear.) He had who had just sat down had introduced the subject of wages, and
heard many landed proprietors regret the extent to which the expressed an opinion founded on mistake, for he (Mr. Elphin-
manufactures of 'this country had arrived. He had heard stone) believed that wages in no way depended on the price of
the same party declare their belief that the people of Great food, but depended alone on the demand and - supply
Britain enjoyed more comfort and more happiness before the of labour. For example, he would take the case of Ante
extension of our commercial and manufacturing system. He rica ar.d Ireland. In Ireland provisions were very
believed those individuals weresincere in those statements • but dear, and the wages of labour at almost the lowest point at
it was scarcely necessary to state to that House that they drew which life could be supported. They had evidence that wages
their conclusions from false premises, and with a total igno- were so low that the manufacturing popoulation in the north of
ranee of the facts. Besides, the question was not now whether Ireland were so reduced that many of them had been known to
this country was to become a great commercial nation-the go to the starch manufactories and devour the refuse which
question was, whether, being already the greatest commercial was thrown away in this and other countries when provisions
and manufacturing nation in the world, our commerce should were eheip. In America it was just the contrary, they had pro-
continue to prosper, or should be allowed to decline. We visions cheap and wages high. Capital was employed, and the
could not stand still. We were the greatest workshop for a working man was able to find a master and employment. The
large portion of the inhabitants of Europe, and we should Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Dorchester, estimated the
either improve or retreat. Now, it was not necessary for him price of foreign wheat brought into this country at 40,. a
to state to that House what would be the result of a retro- quarter. Now, let them calculate what was annually extracted
grade movement.- ( Hear, hear.) The evils which would be from the pockets of the people.-( Hear, hear.) The average
thereby inflicted upon society would be too dreadful to con- price of wheat during the last few years was 575. to 583. per
template.-(Hear, hear.) 'l'he principal argument advanced quarter, this being I7s. higher
introduced Right Hon. Baronet
than the
in favour of protection to the landed interest was that it would had computed that corn might be into this country.
make us independent of other nations for our supply of corn. If they assumed the consumption of this country to be
He did not think that any person who knew much of the sub- 25,000,000 of quarters annually, they had something like
jest would attach any great value to that argument. He 20,000,0001. of money extracted ycaily from the pockets of
could not well see how any great commercial and manufactur- the poor, which otherwise might be employed in the purchase
ing country could be to any great extent independent of other of some i f the comforts of life. ' The Corn-laws riot only pre-
nations. Perhaps he might be told that it would be the grossest vented the labourer obtaining employment here, but their ope-
injustice to take away all protection from the agriculturists, ration caused competition to be raised in America with our own
and leave his protection to the manufacturer.-(Hear, hear.) manufacturers. They hid it stated by a Commission of Inquiry
He entirely concurred in the justice of that remark, that we were losing the markets for our manufactures abroad,
He was ready, and he believed the most enlightened for Germany and Switzerland were successfully competing with
manufacturers in this country were ready, with us. Mr. Ibbotson, of Sheffield, had stated thatfive-eighths of the
a repeal of the Corn-laws, to assent to a repeal of all the laws Skeffield trade was to America, but ow ing to the Corn-laws
which rests icted the free importation and exportation of every their principle trade was the export of steel, which was
manufactured article. His opinion was that the agriculture, worked up in America into scissors and knives, and thus the
commerce, and manufactures of the country had flourished, not trade was taken out of their hands. '1 his evidence was corro-
in consequence of their restrictive system, but in spite of it.- horated by the amount of exports to the different countries of
(Hear, hear.) He believed the mote freedom that was given the continent of Europe. Now, in 1829, we exported to Bel-
to trade, the more it would flourish. Such being his opinions, gium 18,000,ft0 lbs, of cotton-twist ; in 1833 this quantity
he was ready to concur in any plan that would do away aitone_ had increased to 23,000,0001b5. To Holland, in the year
ther with restrictive duties. He was well aware that there 1830, we exported of the same article 200,0001bs , and in 1833
might be considerable difficulty in obtaining so desirable a re_ it amounted to the large quantity' of 11,000,000 lbs. The Right
stilt; but he did notdespair. He trusted that the landowners Hon. Baronet, in his speech in bringing forward the Corn-laws,
would agree to considerable modification, and for himself he had stated the official value of goods exported from this
would only say that he was convinced that the best interests country to Europe, in the years 1838, 1839, and 1840. He
of the country wouldbwensured by a free trade in corn. (Mr. Elphinstone) had read over the different estimates, and
Lord MAHON admitted fully that the petitions of the he found them to differ from that stated by the Right Hen.
people to that House were entitled to the greatest consideration, Baronet. He found that in the year 1833 we exported
but he thought that the minds of the people had been unduly 69,000 e of goods of official value, and in 1840 this sum
exercised upon by pamphlets on the subject of the Corn- h; d risen to 2,000,000/. (The Hon. Gent. then 'referred to
laws.
.He had seen such pamphlets himself, and he the exports of 1840 and 1841, but there was so much noist. in
had also observed prints of a most improper description. the House that they were not heard in the gallery.) The em-
Many
of the speeches he had heard tea this subject were harassment to this country consequent upon the Right Hon.
marked with praiseworthy moderation, ' and much as he re- Baronet's measure would be considerably aggravated by

having to export bullion in seasons of distress. The Noble
Lord who had just sat down alluded to the great
advantage of having foreign corn is hen this country
sto id in need of it. At the same time, if countries
in the same degree of latitude and longitude were similarly
affected, as no doubt tney might be, if the commerce of this
country was extended, the probability was that when there
were had harvests in this cauntry, there might be good harvests
in other countries, not in the same latitude; and therefore the
people of England would have a better chance of deriving ad-
vantage from them—(Hear)—under every circumstance he
felt that the greatest advantages would result to this country
from the unqualified repeal of the Corn-laws —( Cheers.) He
considered them most obnoxious and detrimental to the interests
of England.—( Cheers from the Opposition benches.) England
was always pre-eminent in science, pre-eminent in indu-try,
and pre-eminent in power ;. if the Parliament now by this
measure crippled the energies of the people by interfering
with their industry in that way, he (Mr. Elphinstone) feared
very much that the country would be deeply affected by it, and
fall under the withering blight of a restricted commerce.
Mr. G. HEATHCOTE, after some prefatory observations,
said that it became the duty of the House to do the best that
was possible under existing circumstances, and to do all in
their power to promote the agricultural interest of the country,
or, at all events, to make the best terms they could, in order
that those great and important interests should be as little in-
jured as possible.—( Hear, hear.) He believed the question
mooted by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Vil-
liers), was an exceedingly wide one, and he believed that many
Honourable Members in the course of the debate, had
entered upon the consideration of many topics remotely
connected with the subject of the Corn-laws. However,
he ( Mr. Heathcote) would state his opinions candidly,
and he intreated the attention of the House to them I
before they arrived at a decision of the measure which the
Right Hon. Baronet had brought under their consideration.
He (Mr. Heathcote) wished to make one observation with
reference to his vote the night before last upon the amend-
ment proposed by his Noble Friend the Member for London.
He (Mr. Heathcote) had always expressed his opinion against
any fixed duty on corn.— (Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) He looked upon a fixed duty as an absolute injury
to the landed proprietors, and, in fact, he considered it a much
lower duty than the present mire. A fixed duty was always
either too high or too low. When corn was leer the duty was
injurious to one class, and when it was high it offered a most
unfair impediment to the introduction of foreign corn, so far
as the consumer was concerned; it appeared to him better
both for the consumer and the producer if a gradual relaxa-
tion were adopted than if a fixed duty were imposed. He
wished to say a few words with reference to the Right Hon.
Baronet. All that Right lion. Gent. appeared to him (Mr.
Heathcote) to prove was, that there should he no alteration at
all in the Corn-laws. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that
he did not think the alteration he proposed would give any
material relief or mitigation to the distress which
as tinfortenately prevalent in the country, and Lord Melbourne,
the head of the late Government, hail said the s.me thing— I
( Hear, hear)—in fact, everything that had fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet in the course of the discussion went to
show that instead of any alteration being made in the Corn-
laws, they should be left as they are.—( Hear, hear.) Howes er
't was perhaps useless for him (Mr. Heathccte) to speak of
;hinge which had gone by. The great object of an alteration
in the Corn-laws was to have an alteration in the averages.
Upon the subject of wheat, probably, there was not so mrch
dissatisfaction entertained with respect to the proposed mea-
sure, but with reference to barley and oats, he was convinced
there was the greatest dissatisfaction, and his principal object
in rising to address the House, was to ascertain
.whether something could not be done by her Majesty's
Ministers, or some changes made with reference to the duty
upon those articles. He was the more anxious to do that, as
his Noble Friend, the Member for Lincolnshire, had stated
that a great quantity of wheat above the maximum stated by
the Right Honourable Baronet had come into the market, but
the proportions of barley and oats were totally different. Now,
the maximum for oats was only Bs. He found that the quan-
tity of oats which came in at various periods of a particular year
whirr he stated was 554,000 quarters at 7s. 9d. a quarter,
193,000 quarters at 9s. a quarter, 467,000 quarters at Bs. a
quarter, and 166,000 quarters at 12s. a quarter. Now, the
.naximum duty was only Bs., and what he feared was the
result which must arise from hiving a large surplus
quantity when the harvests were favourable all over the world,
.could be similar results to those which happened in 1822 and
1823 would arise in seasons of distress. He wished to warn
the Right lion. Baronet of those results, and it was with a
view to anticipate them if possible, that he had then called the
attention of the House to the subject. In the first instance
lie wished to call attention to the prices of corn in Denmark.
The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to be somewhat aware that
when he was replying to the lion. Member for Bolton,
that he was answering too much, and that he was
actually breaking a hole in his own case.—(Hear, hear.)
l'he fact was so, and though the Right Honeurable Baronet
had fairly stated the report, he had not stated the entire of
the circumstances. He (Mr. Heathcote) found, by the papers
which he then held in his hand, that the prices of corn in
Denmark were so extremely low, that he hesitated to think
they were correct; he could not think that there could be
'uch a disparity of prices as he found in those papers. In his
opinion, it would have been better if the prices were taken not
for several years, but a series of prices for several parts or dis-
iricts of a country ; and now, as he had the authority of the
Right Hon. Baronet for stating that those papers were correct,
he would state to the House their contents as hearing upon the
I resent subject. He found that the average price of corn in
Denmark, for the last twenty-fire years, was very
variable ; and, as he was upon that subject, he
might then observe, that, though the freight of corn
from that country was between 3s. and 3s. 6d. In fact corn
could be had from Denmark as cheap as from any place else on
the opposite shores. Now the average price of wheat there
for the last twenty-five years was 28s. a quarter ; barley, 14-.
a quarter ; and oats only 10s. a quarter. He had also found
that the average price for the last seven years, so fat from
being 28s. a quarter fur wheat, was only 255. a quarter.—
( Hear.) He thought 3s. difference in the average price of
corn within that period, if lion. Gentlemen would only make
a calculation upon it, would destroy all the calculations and se-
ductions made upon the other side (the Ministerial
side), and throw them into a dilemma out of
which it would be utterly impossible for them to
get.—( Cheers.) There was no great difference in the average
prices for the last seven years except that barley was Is.
cheaper than for the 25 years, and oats were something
about the same thing. In 1824 he found that the price of
wheat in Denmark was I6s. a quarter, barley St. a quarter, and
oats only 6s. a quarter. In 1825 wheat was 17s. a quarter,
barley 9s. a quarter, and oats 7s. a quarter. Would a.iy one
say that that was an accidental or a casual circumstance? In the
:even years that followed 1821 be found that the average
price of wheat in Denmark was only 18s. a quarter, barley
10s. a quarter, and oats only Bs. a quarter. Now he would
take th.s opportunity of asking the Honourable Baronet
opposite whether he had calculated those averages ? whether
he had anticipated them, and was prepared to deal is ith them? If
the Right Hon. Baronet had not done so, the measure lie pro-
posed certainly required revision.—( Hear, hear.) When he
( Mr. Heathcote) looked at all those things, he felt himself fully
justified in hesitating before he gave his acquiescence to the
Right Hon. Baronet—( Hear, hear)—still, more should he
hesitate to support his Noble Friend, the Member for London,
and a thousand times mors should he feel himself justified in
giving all the opposition in his power to the motion of his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton.—(Cheers.)
Thirty or forty years ago the labourers of this country eat the
blackest and coarsest barley and rye bread ; now they eat the
best wheaten bread. The Honourable Member for Yorkshire
the other day stated the same fact; he (Mr. Heathcote) heard
with pleasure the Honourable Member for Wigan confirm the
statement, and lie was delighted to think that even in Bucking-
hamshire this state existed. He (Mr. Heathcote) believed that
the people of England were not in so bad a condition as had
been represented. He would wish Honourable Gentlemen to
take care then how they meddled with the people's condition.
If they lowered their rents the master manufacturers must take
less profits. —( Hear, hear.) They must not enter into a com-
petition by low wages with the manufacturers of the Continent.
He thought they should look mose to America for a supply of
corn than to the northern nations of Europe, because we could
export much manufactures to America, whilst they exported
very little to the north of Europe. For this statement
he had the authority of Mr. Van Buren, the late Pre-
sident of the United States; and Lord Melbourne had since
repeated it in his place in the House of Lords. Besides,
with regard to America, he did not ace how it happened that
they were afraid of the manufacturers of Americaf when they
(the Americans) paid such high wages. It was natural we
should buyi where we soul l get things cheapest—that we
should, therefore, go to America for corn ; but we should take
care how we reduced our own growth of corn, and depended too
much upon foreign nations for supplies ; otherwise, ere the
meanest person in the kingdom could get a morsel of bread
we should have twice to cross the Atlantic. In America the
price of corn had been sometimes higher than in England
—and what was to happen in the case of war ?—and he (Mr.
Heathcote) feared that there were parties in America who had
not the best feelings towards England—they would have nei-
ther cotton to spin nor bread to eat.—(Hear, hear.) And
with regard to Odessa, we should have plenty of corn thence
when we did not want it, but when we did want it we should
not get it, and he believed the same thing would be the case with
the nations in the north of Europe ; they would not allow
the exportation of corn in a season of difficulty. He
(Mr. H.) arrived, therefore, at the conclusion, that the cheapest
corn would be that which was grown at home.—( Cheers from
the. Tories.) How wi re we to accomplish the growth of suffi-
cient corn, however, with an increasing population? He did
not think Hon. Gentlemen opposite were aware of the great
improvements which had lately taken place in England.—
(" Hear, hear," from Ministers.) And not enly that, but the
agriculturist himself had greatly improved; to the sound prin-
ciple and firm integrity of his fathers, he adds intelligence.
( Hear.) Aral he (Mr. Heathcote) believed—he would say it,
though it might appear strong language—that there was hardly
a field in the country which did not produce more food, and
produce for man, than it did fifty years ago.—(Hear.) He
thought, therefore, that this country would still produce plenty
for the population. —( Hear, hear. )an tone of voice.
Mr. LEADER commenced' in
There was one remark of the Hon. G t e
ranacso speechmuch
improved which he would allude. He said that agriculture i
i
r. L. ) thou ht there
, H
to land:—(Hear. ear.l He
was less pretence for protection
improved of late years that we had no ideam of what land would
now produce. if that were the case he
agreed with the Hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down only
much amused by the
John Russell. He (Mr. Leader) was
for Her' ford. One of
speech of the Noble Lord the MemberFrederi
in ens point, viz. in his opposition to the fixed duty of Lord
the Noble Lord's authorities was George Frederick Young.
d very certain autho
one, but one who was never considered a
rememberedthat he - some_
on any subject, ard it must be n
s the other side of
a speech of Lord Fitzwilliam'ss
the House.—( No, no.) he Nob
times voted on one side and sometimes Certainly when a Member of that House, a very respectable
and referred to what Sir H. Parnell elitii.lrnsoerd hoad, alsoo quoted from
what had been said b these II"' Lord should have quoted
eivered 2or-b years ago,
had said 36 years ago.—
("personages lately, now
experience, and he should
when they were young
nmti;
jetntiht
uave ua(donAgtdeimdrlaughter.)
a)
taTthtuhhareedeydNsboayblillld
lie
the
voted against the
also ballet:l
dne
Member
rc(hAf amused
.mTuLis‘ee,
Tiverton,
eobroy),
Cortn
al a
cwoso.
what he said of the Noble Lord
had:hat Noble Lord had be-
comevorTt
h tois onalysosolitoidwep
telling us that in 1828
wished there were a few more of the same sort.—( Hear,
hear.) Hon. Geutlemen opposite were much mistaken as to the
wishes and feelings of the people with regard to the Corn-laws.
They fancied ghat` because the obtain h interrupted certain
public meetins, nd wished to obtain „something previous to
the Corn-laws, that they were in favour of the Corn-laws.
lie (Mr. Leader) did not believe this. lie knew, from his
own experience, that they were decidedly and most strenuously
opposed to those laws.—( Hear, hear.) They considered these
laws proceeded from din legislation, and they wished to get
rid of that first, because they believed that they should soon
showed
i nthheeiapt 1 that
then get rid of those evil laws which were the result of class
legislation. He believed the working men had too much sense,
and knowledge of political economy, to have fallen into the
error ascribed to them. He believed they knew well
what had
been stated by Franklin, seventy years ago,
that all Acts passed for the restriction of trade, bad
been either enacted by political plunderers, or were
passed by individuals for private objects, instead of from princi-
ples of public good.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Leader) was
riot present when his Honourable Colleague spoke the opinions
of Westminster. He (Mr. Leader) was sorry he was unable
to attend ; it was out of no disrespect for his Hon. Colleague, I
but he had been prevented solely by ill-health. His Hof.. I
Colleague stated that the Right Hon. Baronet might be sure

of the support of the respectable and substantial constituency'
of Westminster. He (Mr. Leader) begged to assure the
Right Hcn. Baronet, that if he took this opinion he would
form a very incorrect idea of the people of Westminster. He
( Mr. Leader) grieved to say that his Hon. Colleague had a
right to speak for one-half of the constituency ; but though he
might claim monopoly on a great many points, he could not
claim a monopoly of the constituency of Westminster.—
(Cheers.) Of those who supported him (Captain Ri.us)
he (Mr. Leader) believed there were many who did not ap-
prove of the Right Hon. Baronet's plan, whilst of those who
suppeited him (Mr. Leader) he believed there were very,
very few, who approved of it at all. Out of a pepulation of
000,000 in Westminster there were only 10,000 electors; and
of that unrepresented mass there were very few indeed
but would condemn the Right Honourable Baronet's
plan, and support the proposition of his Honourable
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. There had been a ,
great deal said on the other side in blame of the agitation that
had been used against the Corn-laws. He (Mr. Leader)
shold like to know whether Hon. Gentlemen condemned it
only on the ground of agitation, or because it happened to be
agitation against their favourite system ?—( Hear.) Be-ide,
he would ask, what had the great body of unrepresented peo-
ple to do but to agitate? The counties were almost entirely
in the hands of their opponents, and in towns the same was the
case, owing to the immense prevalence of bribery and corrup-
tion. He did not mean to say that bribery and corruption
were on one side of the House only ; but he meant to say that
money and property generally carried the election.—(Cheers. )
The petitions of the people were not fairly treated or listened
to.—(Cheers from the Tories.) He was glad Honourable
Gentlemen opposite cheered at what he had stated. It
only showed that the people having nothing left them, could
not but agitate. But was the agitation all on this side ?
Had net Gentlemen opposite been agitating against the ma-
nufacturers ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) For his (Mr. Leader's)
part, he had never heard a more To rce, inveterate speech
than the one made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Knaresborough against the manufacturers.—(Cheers.) That
Hen. Gentleman always spoke as if he were actually in earnest
and he (Mr. Leader) like to hear a man speak as it lie were in
earnest ; but really he would ask that Hon. Gentleman if he
were seriously in earnest in the positive charges he brought
against some of the manufacturers the other night?—(Mr.
Ferranti—Entirely.") Then if he were in earnest he (Mr.
Ferrand) was bound in honour to prove it, either by way of
Committee or other satisfactory manner. It was against ma-
nufacturers generally.—(No.) He would ask were all these ma-
nufactures blood-stained and bloodthirsty ?—(" No, no," from
Mr. Ferranti.) He would ask lion. Gentleman opposite how
they I,ked the assertion of that tientleman ? He should think
the Right Hon. Baronet would rather have had his vote with•
out the speech which accompanied it.—( Hear, hear.) lie
(Mr. Leader) would thank the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Knare,borough and the Noble Lord the Member for
Dorchester to look to the state of the agricultural la-
, bourers in the south and south-west of England,
where they would find them starving on 6s. a-week. He
mentioned this, however, only to show that if the Anti-Cot n-
law people had agitated against the agriculturists, they (the
agriculturists) had done the same thing with regard to manu-
facture, s.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet
would not, it appeared, effect great alteration in the corn trade,
nor would it, as the Right lion. Baronet had himself said, do
much good to the people. He was not giing to read long ex-
tracts, nor to quote from blue books , that had been
so well done already, that it was not necessary for
him to do so, he did not require much to know
what suffering existed in the country. A great deal of
this misery must be attributed to our enormous tariff,
with its tremendous, interesting duties ; and it was kept up on
the basis of protection of the landed interest, and the effect
was, that we could not take that from foreign countries which
they could supply better than ourselves, and they would not
take what we could supply better than they. The consequence
was, that foreign nations made their tariffs more exclusive
every year. Were Hon. Members opposite aware that the
Spanish Government had. published a new tariff a few weeks
ago, by which 50 per cent. additional duty was placed
upon manufactured goods sent il,om England? He (Mr.
Leader) went with several other gentlemen to wait
on Lord Ripon, to ask him if there were any chance or ani thing
being done to relieve the distress of the country ? They were
received by the Noble Lord with gnat courtesy and attent on.
In fact he received them with as much attention as the Mem-
bers of the Cabinet had received the Ten Hours' Deputation
Bill. But he feared the result of the interview with Lord

Ripon would be as unsatisfactory as that of the Ten Hours' De-
potation. They were trying to make commerci 1 treaties with
France, and Belgium, and Spain, but how could it be ex ected
that those countries would enter into treaties with them, when
they impo'cd such high duties on the productions of those coun-
tries ? How could they remonstrate with those countries, or
how could they speak to them of commercial regulations?
Would they not tell us to look to our own tariff, which
was the highest in Europe ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.)
He did not think the Spanish Government over wise in in pos-
ing duties on our manufactures, and they would be deceived
if they expected to obtain any revenue thereby. The effect
would be that they would raise an army of smugglers. He was
greatly surprised at the speeches of lion. Gentlemen opposite,
who expressed the greatest dissatisfaction at the measure of
the Right Hon. Baronet. He could not imagine what they
would be at. They had already got a large majority in the
House of Lords : and now they had a large majority in that
House—they had protection enough- more than enough -by
the Bill of the Right lion. Baronet.- (Hear, hear.) They
had a Minister who, as the Noble Lord, who sat near him, once
remarked, was so well able to dress up a statement for the
House, and who, on the present occasion, was able to persuade
Hon. Gentlemen to believe that some good would result from
the Bill which he introduced to the House.—( Hear, hear. )
He could not say if the landed gentry were pleased, but he
knew neither the manufacturers nor the people were.—( Hear. )
He thought one good, however, would result horn that
Bill, because it would cause the middle classes to
unite with the working classes of the country.—(Hear, hear. )
The working classes seeing there were no expectations of jus-
lice from the present Parliament, would form a junction with
the middle classes, and he hoped the latter would unite with
theni in procuring a system of representation which would free
them from the dsmirnon of the landed interests—(Hear)—and
save them from the evils of class legislation.—(Cheers.) He
begged to thank the House for the patience with which they
heard him, snd he would give his best support to the motion
of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—( Cheers. )
Mr. MAIN WARING. who spoke in so low and hesitatisg
a tone that it was impossible to hear him distinctly, was un-
derstood to say that he rose for the purpose of defending the
landed interest from the attacks of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Hon. Member then referred to the state of his own neigh-
bourhood, and the distress existing there, but 'se could not
catch the precise application of his remarks. He believed the
Bill of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton would be ruinous
to the country. and he would give him his most strenuous(); po-
sition. He did not think the people in general were in favour
of the Corn-laws, and most of the petitions presented to the
House came from Dissenting cor.gregations.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.)
Mr. 11ROTHERTON said, that if some of his poor con-
stituents were present at the debate in that House, they would
be much surprised at the alarm felt by Hon. Members lest they
should have cheap bread.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the
Hon. Member for Lincolnshire had convinced him there was no
necessity for a Corn-law. The improvements in agriculture
had been so great that, according to that Hon. Member, they
had the means of raisins, corn as cheaply as any otlser country.
The Noble Load, the Member for Hertford, had said that the
people had no grievances ; but he (Mr. Brotherton) would
ask would they petition that House in such numbers if they
had no grievances to complain of ?—( Hear, hear.) He spoke
of the danger of exciting one class against another ; but he
( Mr. B rotherton) recollected he was once amused at hearing
the Hon. Member for Oxford stating "that he preferred quiet
error to unruly truth ;" and he supposed the Noble Lord was
now in some similar state.--( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) The
Noble Lord stated that the Corn-laws were not productive of
evils, because corn was dearer at Amsterdam than in this countr%
But, if he took a period of twenty years, he would find the
average price of corn in Amsterdam at. 30 per cent
cheaper
than in this country.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord also
alluded to Denmark, and the price of corn there, but corn was
cheaper by 30s. a quarter than in this country, and if that were
so, had not the people of England cause to complain ? He was
much surprised at hearing Hon. Member's complaining
of the cheapness of corn in this country.--( Hear, hear. )
They k- ew that in the manufacturing districts the merchants
were bankrupt—the manufacturers all but ruined; that trade
was paralysed, artizans unemployed, and great numbers of the
population starving. That state of things had been admitted
by the Right [lon. Baronet at the head of the Government ;
but, from the various speeches he (Mr. Brotherton) had
heard from other Members, it appeared to him to have
been doubted ; and he, therefore, wished to bring
forward a few facts to show the state of the
particular district with which he was connected, knowing, as
the Noble Lord (Lo. d Mahon) the Member for Hertford had
said, that one fact was worth a dozen assertions. He would
therefore beg leave to state that there was an investigation in
the Boroughs of Manchester and Salford in the December of
last year, and at that time it was found that there were 5,492
untenanted dwellings, 681 untenanted shops, and 116 mills, and
other places unoccupied, making in all 6,289 places un-
occupied, which if occupied would have produced a
rental of 100,0001. There then was a fact that must
convince any one of very considerable distress exist•
ing in that district. But let them consider what had been
said by Hon. Members, and compare with those statements
some facts respecting th?, depreciation of property. It was said
that mill-owners were very prosperous. In one case that he
knew of, there was machinery which cost 50,0001. ; it had been
worked upon an average about seven years; it had been valued
in July, 1841, at 21,5641. 19s. ; and it had been sold in De-
cember, 1841, and January 1842, for 5,0001.—( Hear, hear. )
There was another case in the neighbourhood of Man-
chester, where property, which cost 120,0001., was sold for
36,000/. A third instance VCIS that of a mill valued at

of wheat for the last ten years had been 55., and the general
coat 513,000,0001 If wheat had been in this country during
those ten years at the same price as it had been on the Continent
the amount would hate been 342,000,00 a, thus making a loss
to the consumers in this c' wary durino: ten years of
171,000,0001. He ( Mr. 13rotherton ) could them fore account.
for the Corn-laws producing the present distress. It was
owing to the people having to pay so much more for their food
than they would have to pay if they had a tree trade. Instead
of the distress being attributed to the various causes to which
it had been assigned by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was really
to be attributed to the high price of food caused by the Corp-
laws. If the grain exported had yielded as much to the spinner,
merchant, and artisan, for their labour as they did in 1815,
it would have amounted to 12,340,6171.; where s, the sum
actually received was only 3,084,098/. The manufacturers had
2s. Id. per pound for working, after deducting the raw material
in 1815, and in 1841 they had only bid. In calicoes, what
cost 15s. in 1815, could be purchased in 1841 fur ss. 6d.
—(Hear, hear.) Here, then, was the cause of the
distress which existed in the manufacturing interest.
But what was the fact with regard to the agricultural
interest ? Since 1815 there had been many improve-
ments in the land, which had greatly increased its power of
production ; yet there had been no decrease in the price of
bread. Thus the manufacturers gave three pieces of calico in
1 40 for the same quantity of wheat whit's they obtained in
181:5 fel. one; and while ell the improvements in agriculture
were applied for the exclusive benefit of the agricultural
interest, all the improvements in machinery were ap-
plied for the benefit of the public.—( Hear, hear.)
Was he, then, to consider that the improvements
in machinery had inflicted an injury upon the country?
By no means; although the price of manufactures had been
so much lowered, their declared value was three times as
great as in 1815; and a much greater number of persons had
been employed notwithstanding the reduction Hon. Mem-
bers had supposed that the destruction of machinery would be
'an advantage to the country. Let them look to Ireland.--
( Hear, hear.) In that country corn was much cheaper than
in England ; but because manufactures were not in a thriving
condition, and wages were low, the people were not benefited
by the cheapne.s of corn. In Ireland. too, there was plenty of
competition for farms, but there was not sufficient employment
for the people. He would ask, then, what they meant to do
with those who could not obtain employment? Did they mean
t r starve them to death ? Did they mean, like Pharaoh and
Hercid, to kill the peopl ..--(Hear, hear,- from the Opposition,
and suppressed laughter from the Ministerial Benches.) They
could not employ them in agriculture because the improvements
in agriculture tended .ather t' increase than to de as ase the
agricultural population.—(Cries of " No, no," from the Minis-
te. ial silo of the House.) He affirmed on good authority that
such was their inevitable tendency. A great deal had been
said about machinery having the effect of displacing a
great number of hands. That was a complete fallacy.
The population di Lancashire in 1779 was about 350,060 per-
sons, in 1841 it was 16,677,334. In 1770 not more than 60,000
persons were employed in the cotton tiade ; in 1636 it was
computed that there were 1,600,000. It could not therefore
be contended that the effect of machinery was to diminish the
demand for labour.—( Hear, hear.) Far different, however,
was the effect of the improvements which had taken place in
agriculture. Every improvement there must tend to decrease
the neces,ity for employing labourers. He was one of those
who believed that agricultural prosperity and manufacturing
prosperity were closely allied, and that they could not destroy
the one without destroying the other.—( Hear, hear.) The
manufacturers had greatly increased the value of land. Manu-
facturers had never made a fortune for themselves' wlihout
making greater fortunes for the lanlowners, without any
labour whatever on their part.--( Laughter.) There was no
doubt about that fact.--( Continued laughter.) When the
Corn 8.11 of 1815 was proposed, enlightened men op-
posed it ; and on that occasion the late Sir Ro-
bert Peel showed clearly that it was only by en-
couraging trade and manufacturers, that the prosperity
of the nation would be secured.— (Hear, hear.): He had
shown that the present distresses of the country were to be
attributed to the Corn laws -, but even wei eit otherwise, he
would oppose it because he believed it to be unjust.—( Hear,
hear.) The landed interest claimed a. right to tax the rest of
the community for their own advantage. He denied
that they had any such right. In 1740 and 1750
there were exported from this country eight million
quarters of grain, and 1,5C0,000/. was paid out of
the Treasury as a bounty upon exportation. If the claim
which had been set up, to supply the country exclusively, were

a just one, the manufacturersWOuld have had a right to object.
to the exportation which occurred at that period.—( Hear,
hear.) Tl.e meas•ure of the light Hon. Baronet was spoken
of as a concession to the manufacturing interest, and yet they
were told at the same time that they were not to
expect to derive much benefit from it. He denied
it was a concession ; it was only a part of what they were en-
titled to. The manufacturers had never asked more than was
just. He had shown that they would receive nine millions less
this year than they would have received in 1815.—(Hear.)
Since that period the manufacturers had had the pleasure of
giving cheap goods in return for dear corn.—( Laughter.) The
agriculturists told them that they were their best customers.
It was very true that. they gave them a good deal with one
hand, but then they received something back with the other.
There was a simile which was not very inapt in reference to
this paint—namely, that if a man came to a draper's shop,
and robbed the till of a shilling, and afterwards came hack
to spend (id., he could not be considered a very good customer.
That was ju-t the ewe with regard to the agt letilturists—they
robbed the manufacturers of a large portion of their earnings,
and then came back and laid out halt' the amount with them,
and then called themselves their best customers. The agricul-
turists say that they have a right. to this protection, be-
cause they have laid cut and invested their capital in improve-
ments in land, which had the effect of employing a great
many labourers, but they took care never to say
a word about rents—all was for the benefit of the farmer
arid the labourer. Now, he did not believe that much land
would be thrown out of cultivation by the repeal of the Corn-
laws.; but even if it were so, and if amass of labour was thrown
out of employment, he would rather see them paid by a direct
tax, and then they should know what it cost- But he denied
the right to protection. Let him ask this; suppose a
person erected a mill in this country, and ex-
pended a great ; deal of capital in machinery,
and a foreigner were to invent a machine that was far better
than his own, and in a degree superseded it, what would be
thought if the manufacturer came to Parliament, and asked
for protection against the foreigner, ?—( Hear, hear.)
If he produced any thing superior to theirs, they tout
bear the comfetition—they had no remedy whatever ;
they could not come to Parliament, and ask it to
pay their bills. If they borrowed money on their mills, they
must pay the interest on it themselves. Brit if the landowners
involvt d themselves in debt, if they exceeded their annnal in•
come, if they had large mortgages on their estates, they said
they must keep up tin it station, and come so lidrliament and
get an Act to throw the burthen on the rest of the people. A
Noble Lord had referred to the prints which taught the people the
nature of the Corn-laws; but it was necessary that they should
be taught that they were made for the benefit of the few
rather than the many. He would compare two persons in the
sane village, one who had served his apprenticeship to a car-
penter, or a shoemaker ; he enters into life and has
to support himself; the squire comes to an estate of
thousands of aeres of land; the poor man has nothing
but his labour; bat the squire wants to maintain the dignity
of his station, and what does he do? He consents to an Act
of Parliament, that will take, under false pretences, one-third
of the earnings of that poor man to support it.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh.") He contended that it was true. He had stated
what millions of money it cost them to get their corn more than
it ought, and who was taxed for it ? The poor man ; and he
was taxed 20 per cent., while the rich man was only charged
1 per cent. —(" No, no," and Hear.) The tax was unequal
and unjust to the labouring millions of their population. The
repeal ot the Corn-laws might affect the interest of the land-
owners to a certain extent for a time; but it was stated that
the reason why they were continued was the particular burdens
the land bore. If the land did bear any special burdens he should
like to see them removed ; he knew of no burdens but the poor-
rate, the highway rate, and the county rate, and these diii not
amount. altogether to six millions a year on the land. If they
took the quantity of corn grown at forty-five millions of
quarters a-) ear, this would not amount to more than 100,000
quarters. With what face could the continuance of these laws
be asked? Why were the I.ndowners afraid of removing
a tax so unjust ? AL the rest of the people paid their taxes for
the good of the community in general ; if the landowners
threw their burdens on the manufacturing ant the tabourin,:t
classes, they might depend upon it they saw through the whole
mystery, and wou'd not long bear it. With regard to the
question of wages, he would not take up the time of the House
—( Cries of " Hear hear")--but at any rate, on this point, they
had facts to 'oppose to assertions. They all k,.ew that when
corn was cheap, wages were better f',an when corn was dearer.
Nay, the manufacturers got no wages at all when corn was
dear ; while corn was cheap, it was evident to common sense
that they had something to spend on manufactures. It
had been asserted that the manufacturers wished to reduce
corn, in order to lower wages. Now, if the wakes of the
operative were only halt what they at present were, if corn was
half its present prise, he would be better off. The price of
labour depended, like all other things, on the supply and de-
mand. In this country the population was increasing at the rate
of three or four hundred thousand yearly ; they could not employ
them in agriculture, but they might employ them in manu•
factures. Let them extend their commerce, and take off
the restrictions on trade, and they might be assured
that the people were industrious, and ot a disposition
that did not seek to reverse the or der of things. They were
told that as they " sowed se should they reap," and as their
work had been, so should be their reward ; but now this pre.
cept was reversed, and all the provision was given to the idler,
and the industrious was left to starve.—(" Oh, oh," and
" Question.") He had never been one who trespassed on the
House—( Hear, hear, and a laugh)—he was not favourable
to the custom of making long speeches—(Laughter)—
but he had wished to state some facts which he

21,000/., and sold for 7;050/ Another case was where a mill thought important, and as they would tend to enable the coun •
and machinery which cost 40,000/. was sold for 10,000/. Those try to judge of this measure, he trusted that he had not uselessly
were facts which proved, what had been indeed admitted by trespassed on their time. —( Hear, hear.) He had not intended
most persons, namely, that property had decreased in value to notice the observations of the Member for Knaresborough, if
more than 30 per cent. Now what had been the case wi•li re- he had not repeated that evening that all he had said was true.
gard to the poor. The expenditure on the poor of Manchester He did not know whether it would be Parliamentary or
was in 1836, 24,261/., in 1841 it was 38,9381., in addition to pri- not, but he would tell the Honourable Member, that if he
vote subscriptions. The poor•rate of Salford was in 1836, 5,202/ was to judge of its correctness by what he knew to be true, he
in 1841 it was 17,4011. Again let them see what the effec, should not value its correctness very highly. Some parts of it
of poverty was upon crime ;in 1831 the number of prisoners he knew to be totally destitute of foundation. The Hon.
to take their trials in the New Bailey was 1,000 ; in 1836 it Member had said he had made it his business to inquire, and
was 1,031 ; now that was a year of plenty ; in the year 1841, he had stated that the Honourable Member for Stockport
the number increased to 1,992. Thus, from the year 1831 to had worked his mills night and day, and had made
18.36, years of plenty, the increase was but 31, whereas in other a large fortune by this abominable cruelty. Now he begged to
years the increase was nearly double. Again to slice, state for the information of the Hon. Member, that the lion.
the effects upon trade, there had been an inquiry respecting Member for Stockport never had a mill in his life !—( Cheers. )
the receipts of shop-keepers in Salford. In 1829, their receipts He had spoken also of the manufacturers making
were 198,000/., in 1841 they fell to 131,0001., making a decrease their ledger their Bible —their counting-house their
of 67,0001 The falling off in their customers was Church, and Mammon their God; and that having
not among the middle or higher classes, but among the amassed large fortunes, they had retired, and now had the hypo-
members of the poorer classes of the community. crisy to pretend a wish to ameliorate the condition of the
Those who used to buy a loaf now bought only one penny- working classes. With regard to himself he might say that he
worth of bread, a penny-worth of tea, and a penny-worth of never professed to be rich ; his riches consisted in the fewness
sugar. The poor people only took about two thirds of the of his wants—( Hear, hear, and cheers)—and if there had been
amount of provisions they had been accustomed to take. That nothing in him superior to the considerations of the
was the state in which the manufacturing districts were. Let property he possessed, he never should have been
them compare that with matters appertaining to land. They returned to that liouss in the way he had been. He gloried
tuund that every quarter rents were rising and the value of land in this, that the town with which he had been connected for
increasing. Much had been said with respect to the forty years, had returned him to the House four times without
cause of the existing distress. It had been stated that his spending a shilling.—(Cheers.) If he had been a wor •
it could not be attributed in any degree to the operation shipper of Mammon, perhaps they would not have that respect
of the Corn-laws. The alarm of war in Europe— for him. With regard to machinery, he considered it had
the emigration of labourers from the agriculi ural to the manu- j been the cause of the prosperity of the country, but
facturing districts—the increase of machinery—over-production it was capable of being beneficially regulated. When
—Joint-Stock Banks and speculitions—those were said to be he ( Mr. B.) was in business, and the late Sir Robert Peel
the causes which produced distress in the manufacturing dis- brought forward his first measure, he was an advocate for re-
tricts. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think those strictions, and aided him in bringing about the measures which
might have been the causes of the di tress; yet they found he thought beneficial. They had been beneficial and so far
their exports were greater now than in previous years. It from the cotton trade being an injury to the people of the dis-
could be clearly proved that the falling off was not in trict, under proper regulations it would tend to the health,
our exports to foreign countries, but in our home comfort, and well being of the great mass of society.
trade. In order that the House might see the enor- Before the Hon. Member for Knaresborough became the advo •
mity of the injustice done to the British people in cate of the poor, he (Mr. B.) stood out against the body of
compelling them to pay much more for food than manufacturers in insisting upon measures he thought due to
they ought, he would read another document, with regard I the working people.—( Cheers.) He knew that there had been
to the quantity of foreign wheat imported into this country for opposition on the part of manufacturers to measures which
home consumption. Since July, 1828, the number of quarters they thought would interfere with their interests • still a
were 14,886,000, and on an average the duty paid during those ' speaker ought not to single out individuals, and say that they
thirteen years was ss. 7d. per quarter. From that he inferred were unjust, because they were prosperous.—( Cheers- )
one important fact—namely, that there had not been a grain of For hie (Mr. Brotherton's) part, he was not
this wheat entered for home consumption at less than 70s. ; ashamed of being a cotton-spinner—why should he
per quarter. Now, what was the price of wheat on be ashamed, when the Prime Minister of England was the
the Continent during that term of years ? It was only son of a cotto;1-spinner ?—( Great cheering.) Having made
40s. Fourteen millions of quarters, at • 17s. per quarter, these observation,.
he ( Mr. B. ) would conclude by stating his
was 51,803,8101., and if they had a free trade m epea corn the belief, that a r 'f the Corn-laws would be a great benefit
amount would have been only 29,601,712/, The averageger, price to the country at lar He wished to see manufactures and
.