The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

try, said, " we ask for no protection at all ?" (Cheers.)
That was a fair statement of the question. Oh, but they
thought that protection should be given to agriculture. Ile
wanted to know what was the meaning of those three words,
" Protection to agriculture ?" Did they mean protection to
their mansions, parks of deer, race-horses, dog-kennels, and
packs of hounds ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and laughter. )
Did they mean protection with reference to the superior ad-
vantages which they had enjoyed—that portion of those who
miscalled themselves agriculturists, who lived in a state of
id'eness, merely on the receipt of rent ? Did they mean pro-
tection to the labourer, who had got 7s. a week? Was it
protection to hire? Was it protection to his miserable mud
ho. el ? Was it protection to his destitution ?—( Hear, hear. )
He contended that the agricultural labourers of this country
were in a miserable, a deplorable condition, notwith-
standing their Corn-law.--(" No, no," from the Minis-
terial benches.) The agricultural labourers of the west of
Englana—he had been there lately—had but 6s. and 73. a-
week. They had no more.—( Hear, hear.) They had beard
it stated in that House what was the condition of the mechanic,
what was the condition of the workmen in their factories.
They heard that they wanted employment, and that they were
in a state of destitution.—( Hear, hear.) What was the remedy
proposed ? Had they a remedy ? None. Not a single remedy
was yet proposed for the destitution of the people of this
country. And now, what had been the course of their legisla-
tion? They had taken away protection from the manufacturers ;
they had been taking that course now since 1824. Did they
not think that they had commenced at the wrong end?—
(Hear, bear.) They should have begun with food, the staple
articles of life ; but by the legislation whcih they bad pursued,
they had brought on the misery and destitution of the peop'e
of this country. What did they proclaim to the people of this
land by the Poor-law ? They said, "If you become poor and
destitute, we will put you in gaol—you shall be on a gaol
allowance."—( Hear, hear.) And what did they say by the
Corn-law? That they would not give them the best oppor-
tunity of exercising their abilities to procure for them-
selves bread.—( Hear, hear, hear.) That was their course
of legislation. Why, it was a mad course ; it was one so
fraught with folly and danger, that every institution of this
country at the present moment was in a state of insecurity.
—( Hear, hear.) They knew not what was the temper
of the people out of that House, they knew rot w hat was
the feverish state of the public mind ; and he for one con-
curred with those of the millions who had not joined the Corn-
law League, but who had said that there was no remedy but
in remodelling the constitution of the House of Commons. He
approved of the conduct of those men. They had borne their
sufferings nobly ; they had fought the battle manfully; the;
knew vs here the source of the evil was; and they were for ap-
plying an appropriate remedy. Why, in that discussion, the
arguments which were employed, would really lead them to
believe that the landed proprietors of this country were great
sufferers under the present state of things, that they were a
very persecuted race of men, that they underwent
privations, and that they were monstrously oppressed
with burdens, Think of the burdens ? There were poor-
rates ? Well, what would they do ? Would they have the
poor starve ? Had not the poor rights of maintenance in a
country where they were born—where they had committed no
crime—where they were willing to toil? In the Christian spirit
which ought to actuate them, did they call that a burden—the
maintenance of the poor? It ought to be a pleasure to them. Why
considering the privileges they enjoyed, considering the pleasures
their estates conferred, it ought to be the greatest pleasure to re-
lieve the destitute, and to see that there was no man who wanted
bread. Highway-rates ! would they be able to take their
pleasure if they had not good roads? Was it not for their
profit and advantage that there should be good roads? What
nonsense it was to call that a burden ! It was the
best investment of their capital. What would be the value of
a farm if there were no roads to it ?—( Hear, hear.) Well, then,
what was the next burden ? This complaint, he confessed,
did surprise him. The tithes ! What the advocates of the
Established Church regard the tithes as a burden? It was
impossible. What were the burdens, the odious burdens, that
they wanted to shake off, a grievous load upon their
backs and their energies ? What ! the tithes a burden? why,
it was an abomination—( Great laughter)—he fancied the
Tithe Bill was doomed—he thought the Tithe Commutation
Act was in a fair way for being soon repealed.—( Continued
laughter.) Now, with reference to that Act, he recollected that
when it was before the House he uttered not a word against it,
It dealt with tithe property as public property, and with that
recognition in the Legislature, he thought it would be rather
unwise to try to depreciate that property by lessening its quan-
tity or diminishing its value. An Act of Parliament had
dealt wish it, the Legislature had treated it as a thing which
belonged to the public.—( Hear, hear.) He supposed the pub-
lic might now deal with it. At all events, never did he expect
to have the advocates of the Established Church, the Protestant
Church of this country, contend that the tithe was such a
burden that it would not he spoken of, except with
regret, and pain, and almost horror. Now, under these
circumstances, and in the present aspect of affairs,
what was their hope ? He was sorry that he did not see
the Right Honourable Baronet in his place, because since
he had left that side of the House, the Right Hon. Bart. had
been going the wrong way very fast.—(Laughter from both
sides of the House.) He was afraid, if he did not improve in
the course which he pursued, he would not be in office long
enough to get gentlemen on that side of the House in a very
virtuous way. Having beer. in a state of plethora from over-official
feeding, he wanted now to starve them into something good.
It was impossible for him (Mr. W.) to know what would be
the course of events in that House, but he knew that those
who belonged to the Radical party in that House were placed
now in a very pleasant position. That party had no advocates
in the daily press. 'They were misrepresented, maligned,
abused.--(Hear.) However, it was some good for a public
man to be abused, for it was a proof he was worth
something.—( Hear.) But what had been the course of
events during the last year? Twelve months since, the
Whigs when in office, made certain proposals to the House.
Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side disapproved not only
of the proposals, but the men ; they said they would have
neither, and the Whigs were turned out. He (Mr. W.)
wanted to know what they were likely to gain or obtain by the
change. He remembered the proposal made by the Whig
Chancellor of the Exchequer involved a question with refer-
ence to the revenue, and the main point of his proposal was,
that there should be an increase of revenue by a reduction of
taxation. Now that the public had riot forgotten. There was
to be an increase of the revenue by lessening the burdens of
the people. —(Opposition cheers.) They had a powerful Ad-
ministration at the present moment, and what was the first
proposal they had got ? To continue the duty on corn—to
continue the duty upon the food of the people. That was the
first proposal, and he could not refrain from expressing his
disapprobation of that proposal being brought forward singly.
He did not think it was treating the House with fair-
ness, and that in the entire absence of the other
proposals which the Right Honourable Baronet had
to snake, in an utter absence of knowledge :of those pro-
posals, he did not think they were prepared to discuss the pre-
sent question with advantage to the public. Presently the
House would be committed to this question. It would
be decided by a large majority that the scale which the Right
Hon. Baronet had proposed should be adopted. What might
be the next proposal? Probably an increase of taxation spread
over the surface of the land, and reaching to the poorest work-
men in this country. lie (Mr. Wakley) did not know that such
would be the case, but he feared it might happen. With respect
to the present proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Mr.
Wakley) was free to confess that it was an improvement
on the present system. There could be no doubt entertained
on the subject ; but at the same time, remembering that the
cry had been that the price of food was too high—that you had
unjustly laid duties on the importation of foreign corn ; he was
bound to state—he did not hesitate to prophecy, that on an
average of years the scale of the Right Nos. Baronet would not
reduce the price of wheat in this country one sixpence per
quarter. (In that subject he felt perfectly confident, but then
Hon. Gentleman opposite considered that it was a sacrifice of
20 per cent. brought on the landed interest, and even one
lion. Gentleman proposed to increase the duty. He (Mr.
W.) would be curious to learn what reduction in rents
would take place in consequence of the proposed scale.
It would be a curious fact to investigate. Of course, the far-
mers would go to the landlords, and say, " You voted for the
present scheme, admitting that it was a sacrifice of 20 per cent.
to the landed interest. Now we claim of you a reduction of 20
per cent in the rent." He (Mr. W.) would ask, could such
a demand be refused? could it in any justice be refused,
if the lion. Gentlemen were sincere in their assertions? But
to go back to the history of their proceeding; having resolved
not to have the late Administration, the House had got its
successor. Let them compare the proposals of the two. He
would ask which of the proposals now made were calculated
to satisfy the public ? Was it in any respect of a nature to in-
sure the public that they would have relief from those burdens
which pressed so heavily upon them ? The proposal dirt not
hold out the slightest prospect of that ; on the contrary, the
trade of the country would be fettered as severely as at the pre-
sent moment. The new scale would only produce a more re-
gular trade in corn, without any seduction of
price. The consequence would be that our manufac-
turers would be labouring under the same difficulties
as hitherto, there would be no reduction of burdens extended
to the people. Then what hope, he asked, had persons out
of doors that any relief would be applied to them? If the
landed interest were, as stated, suffering under burdens which
mainly pressed upon agriculture, and was peculiar to it, let them
then, as the Hon, Member for Bath said, buy thent off ; relieve
them of Those burdens—set the trade of the country free.
That had been the recommendation of the Hon. Gentleman.
It was a recommendation based on common sense, and on a
correct view of the question under discussion. It showed at
any rate that there was one in the House who understood it ;
but he (Mr. Wakley) feared that although that was
thoroughly understood by many others, they had not the courage
to apply the proper remedy. Why, the miserable, the slightest
burdens that pressed upon the agricultural interests were
sought to be relieved. It was quite clear that the agricultu-
rists had had the kind consideration of the Legislature. Mil-
lions had been extracted from the people, in consequence of the
tax upon corn, and never could be refunded to the plundered par-
ties. It was impossible. Millions had gone down to the grave in
destitution and misery in consequence of the unjust laws
which the House had imposed. The Hon. Member for Pon-
tefract complained of class egislation. What war it but
special legislation, as if the parties who had made these
laws had done so for their own benefit, and in opposition
to the best interests of the community ? Could it be denied
that the laws were so constructed? No man who reflected for
a moment upon the Corn-laws, could entertain an opposite
opinion. They appeared to have a never ceasing tendency
against the industry of this country. There was no
relief from the operation of the pressure. It was
invariable, never ceasing, never ending, everlastingly
operating to the disadvantage not only of this country, but of
all the markets in the world. What had the working man
to dispose of but his labour? What other prospect had he to
maintain himself with? and yet being destitute of every
other means—of every other property, they said they
would fetter his control of it as they thought proper.
—( Hear, hear.) Whatever his skill, energy, and in-
dustry accomplished, he should not sell in the best market,
nor should he purchase food at the cheapest rate. Such was
the language in which they addressed the poor man. It was
the master evil of the world. It was the landlord's curse upon
the people of England ; but the people of England were be-
coming too wise and too sensible to endure it. He would
tell Honourable Gentlemen opposite they were straining
Ste rope too tight. They seemed really to have lost
their common sense upon this subject. Ile would put to thorn
this simple question—What has made the
land so aluable
this country? Whet but
twereenan
tenants
t
ireintroduced,
merest was
serfs m
h manufactures. Before manufactures
t rentthat
ever
pt a tx existed?—did
pd dikind?—werednot t
t not
et,
ain
n i their
tenace of every institution in the ngdom devolve upon the land ?
That was the case in the • ancient time. Then his rents be-
came a penny, and then 6d. an acre.
Now they
owing amount to a.
thousand, and what was this ug
? To the bringing in of
the wealth of the world to this country, uenceof the skill
and industry of its people. What Was , in
theconseq reward of those people
He (Mr. W.) almost blushed to thinkh
thetreated
people of this country were of
the
manner
in
which
thy- by the English
aristocracy. He hoped it was not attributable to any
selfish or sordid feeling, but to ignorance, and to
ignorance alone of what their
own
what the condition of the people. If they duty was, and
knew the sufferings
Of the people, arid the pleasure they themselves would derive
from seeing the entire country h
he could not believe they would persevere
and prosperous,
in such an unjust
and foolish course of legislation. It wase
very
to speak to interested parties in that House, h unpleasant
earnestness, because he felt that Hon. Members were cam--
o
merited upon for the tone and mariner in which they'addrcessmed
that assemblage. Ile (Mr. Wakley) was the representative of
269,000 of the inhabitants of the north of this metropolis.
His constituents sent him to that House to demand justice " in

return for the allegiance which they owed to the Crown, and
the duties they' dischareed as good citizens. Moe men told
him that they should employ passive resistance in opposition
to the course that that House was adopting. They told
him that they would not willingly any longer yield
passive obedience to the will of that House, se burg
as it was constituted as it now was. They demanded
for the working people of this country the right of representing
their country. They denied that the people were represented in
the House. They alleged that the Reform Act had had ten
years' trial and had failed, and they demanded a reform of
the Act. He (Mr. Wakley) thought that they were wise,
and exercised a sound sense and discretion in making that
demand. He for one did not hesitate to tell them from that
place that in his belief every attempt to remedy existing evils, or
apply the axe to the root of the tree of corruption, was utterly
useless, unless it was applied in that quarter. His belief
was that there could he no remedy for the national grievances,
the system of injustice pursued, whilst the House of Commons
was constituted as it now was, elected by persons who did
not represent the feelings of the mass of the
community. When he heard lion. Gentlemen opposite
talk of the landed interest and the farmers as though the
farmers were the dearest, friend' and most estimable of crea-
tures in the world, he (Mr. W.) would ask the landed
proprietors in that House what their conduct was towards the
farmers when the latter merely wished to exercise their own
uncontrolled judgment in the elections of those who represent
them? Why, when the farmers asked for the Ballot did they say
no change was necessary? Why did they refuse him protection
when he was desirous of enjoying the free exercise of the
rights of a free-born Englishman ?—(Cheers.) They
knew that the farmers' votes were controlled by the land-
lords. It was well known that the landlord could command
as many votes as he had tenants. Under such a system how
could they be surprised that all their legislation was for the
benefit of the landlords ? It was the grossest folly on the part
of the landed proprietors to act as they had been acting, and
they would eventually discover how blind they had been to their
own true interests. 'she Right Hon. Baronet on taking office
had led them to expect that something great was to be done
He ( Mr. Wakley) had been one of the first who had said that
the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have time if he were not
then prepared with his measures. The time had now arrived,
more than seven months bad elapsed since the Right Hon.
Gentleman had taken office, and these were all the proposals
he had to make to the House. He believed the Right
Honourable Gentleman had the capacity and the will to ren-
der great services to the country.—(Ministerial cheers )
But he also believed that the Right Hon. Gentleman was sur-
rounded by those who would not allow him to exercise his
own and better judgment. History would record of the
Right Hon. Baronet that he had greater means of benefiting
his country placed at his command than had ever been placed at
the command of any other statesman; that he had been entrusted
to wield the Lower of the mightiest nation in the world ; had the
proudest aristocracy to support him, and the energies of the
noblest people on the earth to assist him in carrying out any
measures he might propose, that would be really for the benefit
of his country. What would be, said after this, if he should
fail to grapple with the evils which pressed upon the country 2
If the Right Hon. Baronet had the will, which he (Mr.Wakley)
believed he had, and the resollition, which he (Mr. Waklcy )
believed he had not, to grapple with these evils, then the
country might expect to derive the greatest benefit from his
exertions. It was in his power to extend our commerce, our
institutions, and our civilization, and thus confer, not only a
benefit on this country, but on all the people of the
habitable globe. His failure, if he should fail, would
be great. He (Mr. Wakley) would warn the aris-
tocracy that the opportunity now lost would never
return. The people would resolve to take the power into their
own hands, and they would be perfectly justified in doing so if
the aristocracy should now refuse to do them justice ; and if the
people did not adopt that course, he felt convinced that nothing
but calamities would beset the land. He made those remarks
with pain and sorrow, because he would cenfess that he had
no hope of the House of Commons, as at present constituted.
lie believed that if the Members in the Radical interest in that
House, which he considered was in the national interest—( A
laugh)—did their duty to themselves and the country, they
would in the present state of the House of Commons do the peo-
ple more good, and best consult the national interest and their
own, by resigning their seats and retiring.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. MUNTZ intended to support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton, although he did not expect that
the repeal of the Corn-laws would produce that effect which
others thought it would. He had not entertained any high
expectations from the Right Honourable Baronet, when he
took office because he recollected, that on a previous
occasion, thel country had been many years under his
government, and had not. prospered. He had made that
remark last session, and he had at the same time, added
that he was not actuated by a spirit of faction—( Hear, hear)—
and if the Right lion. Baronet brought forward measures for
the good of the country, he would support them. He thought
the Right Hon. Baronet was right to take time to consider his
measures; but at the same time he must say that the largest
mountain that ever was known, brought forth the small-
est mouse ever seen.—( Cheers and laughter.) The
Right Hon. Baronet was perfectly right in his statement,
as to the average consumption of the n-cessarics of life in
England and Russia ; and the Right lien. Baronet had told the
truth, but not the whole truth—he had merely stated the
averaged consumption, but he would defy the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet to produce from any part of Europe such instances of
distress as could be produced in England at the present mo-
ment. It was as if the Right Hon. Baronet was to say to
some poor starving creature in the streets, "We con-
sume tegether a great deal, but I eat it all."— (Cheers
and laughter.) Some years ago they had heard
complaints of distress from the people of Birmingham, but they
then said, " Oh, don't mind them ; it is only those Birmingham
fellows." But now that same cry of distress was raised from,
the Land's-end to John o' Groat's-house. He was not disap-
pointed in the measure of the Government, for the Right Hon.
Baronet had said before he took office, that every one who
proposed by a legislative enactment to relieve the distress was
practising a low delusion. He had expected nothing front the
Right Hon. Gentleman. He felt that the Right Hon. Baronet
was fettered, that he could not do anything; and he sincerely
pitied him.—(Cheers and laughter.) He pitied him,
because he should consider that if he were
himself in the situation of Minister of the first nation in the
world, and were fettered and hampered, as the Right Hon.
Baronet was, he should be in a most pitiable situation, for who
could be more deserving of pity than one who, hav-
ing good intentions, was deprived of the power to
do the good he wished. For himself he (Mr. Muntz)
was, in the situation of the hat in the fable; he was on both
sides ; he did not say that the landed interest ought not to be
protected, but where they protected themselves, they ought to
protect others; they had no right to protect themselves un-
tiriloss they protected the labourers of the ce.pntry also. He
Isffieved that the price of one portion of the labour of the coun-
try was enhanced by the Corn-laws. He believed that two-
thirds of the labourers of the country were in that situation,
but the other one-third was perfectly destitute in con-
sequenence of their operation ; he meant the labour em-
ployed in articles in the export trade which had
to compete with the low priced labour of the Continent.
He considered also that they could not legislate soundly on
the Corn-laws without including the money laws.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) Corn and money were as inseparable
as body and soul.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Tories
had legislated from 1815 to 1830, and what had they done?
They had brought the country to such a state that they
had been obliged to give up the Government. He knew that
some persons attributed the breaking up of that Govern-
ment to an expression which had been made use of by a
Noble Duke in another place on the subject of Re-
form. He (Mr. Muntz) denied that. The fact was the people
were uncomfortable in their stomachs, they had too little to do
and nothing to eat, and that was the cause of the fall of the
Government. The Whigs had then come into pOwer, and
great expectations had been entertained of what they were to
do. Now, what had they done? They had acted upon the
same financial principles as their predecessors had dune, and
in consequence they had gore out, because they could not
keep people's stomachs comfortable. The question was a ques-
tion of stomach, and he could tell the Right lion. Baronet,
that if lie could not supply the people's stomachs, his reign
would he but short. He (Mr. Muntz) was no party-man, he
would support any man who would bring forward good measures.
Whatever measure was a good one should have his support.
Was he alone in this theory with respect to corn anti gold?
Was it originally his only ? Why his oldest master in the
theory was the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dor-
chester.—(Cheers.) He had been one of the ablest writers on
the subject the manner in which he had treated it was highly
creditable to him, and he need not blush to own it.—
(Laughter. ) He might quote from a pamphlet, entitled
" Corn and Currency', by Sir James Graham, Bart., of
Netherby," and, were he to do his duty to the House, he
ought to read the whole of it.—(Laughter.) If he had not
Membert
Honourable
book t
ht oa havero np
Baronet's
proceeded
becomeeepamphlet
aemd
p Iteotconvinced :
quote, ,
seen many proofs of the Right lion. Baronet's being a man of
acute and. pewerful mind, he should only have had to read
oI
dfofroirmLot
theiTir he
tie nRId hn t
to
have made any new discovery." ("Na more," said
Mr. Muntz, "do I.") " I might appeal to, high authorities
to prove that there is much error prevails in making detached
parts of this question—one of them the Corn-laws, the other
the Currency ; whereas, if he rightly understood the situation
of thesis two subjects, they were indissolubly united, and they
could not discuss them apart without injustice to the case."
" The feeling of the people must be hostile to the present
Corn-laws ; the receivers of rent are a small body ;by public
opinion they might be almost omnipotent, but in violation of
of it could not maintain their extensive advantages." The
Hon. Member proceeded to read other extracts, in which the
lion. Baronet contended that there was a point
in which hunger broke through all laws, when
reason was no longer heard, and all the barriers of society were
broken down. '1 he House would see, continued the Hon.
Member, that the Right Hon. Baronet also thought it a ques-
tion of the stomach.—( Hear, hear.) lie goes on to say that
equity demanded in favour of the landowner a
protection equivalent to those charges which are placed by
law on his estate; that protection was a duty, and the
amount of that duty was a tit subject for discussion. But they
must first settle the price of money, as it is impossible to
fix the price with fairness while the standard of the
price is unfair." " The landowners had shown a
blind adherence to high prices, together with a
blindness as to the means by which it was to he obtained.
The price of all commodities, and of corn among the rest,
was governed by the supply in the market, compared
with the demand, and also lay the value of money—itself
the measure of money, and liable to variations in propor-
tion to its quantity." He would entreat the House to
listen to this.--( hear.) "As a body, up to this moment
the landowners have remained undeceived, for it is well known
that during the last session they bargained with the King's Mi-
nisters to support a further contraction in the currency, pro-
vided the Government would not destroy the protection of the
Corn-laws." This he (Mr. Muntz) considered a most extra-
dinary fact, and he could not account for it. As he had
befere said, if he did justice to the Hon e he should read the
whole of the book, but at that late hour he would not do that.
He had once before remarked to the House, and he would say
so again, that the relative value between silver and wheat
was the point that required to be established more
than any other. The authority of Adam Smith had
been quoted as a proof that the price of corn
would regulate the price of wages, but the Honourable Member
said not a word about the value of silver, and forgot to add,
that in Adam Smith's time there were no laws regulating the
price of corn. He forgot to say that the comparison between
silver and corn ought to be maintained. Two other Ho-
nourable Members had done him (Mr. Muntz) the ho-
nour of quoting a pamphlet he had written sometime
since, to support the same argument., that corn regulated
' waees; he had only taken the passage that suited him—had he
taken another it. might not have been so much in print. (Mr.
.read an extract front his pamphlet, contending that all labour
that depended on their export trade hail been depreciated in value,
and that corn must be reduced to ss. a bushel, or the standard
of silver altered from is. 6d. an ounce.) At the time he stated
that the repeal of the Corn-laws would reduce the average
rate of wages, he was aware that the rate of wages was not
regulated by corn. In 1815, the same argument was used ; it
was then held out to all the supporters of the law, that
if the rate of corn was fixed, the rate-of wage; would be fixed
thereby. He would ask the House, if that had been the case ?
Had the rate of wages been kept at aidue rate with the price of
corn ? If not, how could they justify themselves in keeping
up a protection that only benefited their own class? They
were often throwing out reproaches to those who
advocated the making the ounce of silver equivalent
to a bushel of wheat ; they raid, you want to disturb all the
existing relations of finance, you would confound the standard
of value. But he denied that they had any standard of value.