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

return for the allegiance which they owed to the Crown, and se
the duties they discharged as good citizens. These 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 loner yield
passive obedience to the will of that House, so long
as it was constituted as it now was. They demanded
for the working people of this country the right of representing
their country. 'I hey 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 di3cretion 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 beliel
was that there could be 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 Hon. 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 hors
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
On a true interests. The 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 bad said that
the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have time if he were not
then prepared with his measures. The time had now arrived, 1
more than seven months bad elapsed since the Right Hon.
Gentleman had taken office, and these were all the proposal,
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, i
Right Hon. Baronet that he had greater means of benefiting
his country placed at his command than had everbeen placed at
the command of any other statesman; that he had been entrusted
to wield the power of the mightiest nation in the world ; had the
proudest aristocracy to support him, and the energies of the j
noblest people on the earth to assist him in carrying out any 1
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./
If the Right Hon. Baronet had the will, which he (Mr. Wakley)
believed he had, and the resolution, which he (Mr. Wakley )
believed he had not, to grapple with those 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 these remarks
with pain and sorrow, because he would confess that he had
no hope of the House of Commons, as at present constituted.
He believed that if the Members in the Radical interest in that i
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 reeigning their seats and retiring.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ-mtended 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, the 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 Hon. Baronet brought forward measures for
the good of the country, he would support them. He thought I
the !tight 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, &ought 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 necessaries of life in
England and Russia ; and the Right Hen. 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 together 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 from 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. blunts)
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 bad no right to protect themselves un-
tenloss they protected the labourers of the country also. He
believed 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 inelutling the money laws.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) Corn and money were as inseparable
as body and soul.—( Hear, bear, 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 done, and
in consequence they had gone out, because they could not
keep people's stomachs comfortable. The question was a ques-
tion of stomach, and he could tell the Right Hon. Baronet
that if he could not supply the people's stomachs, his reign
would be 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 and 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 en
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, Hart.. of
Netlierby," and, were he to do his duty to the House, he
ought to read the whole of it.—(Laughter.) If he had no
seen many proofs of the Right Hon. Baronet's being a man of
acute and p.,werful mind, he should only have had to mat
this book to have become convinced of it. The Hon.
IMember then proceeded to quote from the Right
1 Honourable Baronet's pamphlet :—" I do not pretend Se,
have made any new discovery." ("Ne more," said
1 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
Ithe Currency ; whereas, if he rightly understood the situation
of these 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 violaton of
of it could not maintain their extensive advantages." The
Hon. Member proceeded to read other extracts, in which the
Hon. Baronet contended that there was a point
in which hunger broke through all laws, when
1 reason was no longer heard, and all the barriers of society were
broken down. 'I he House would see, continued the Hon.
Member, that the Right. Hon. Baronet also thought it a ques-
tion of the stomach.—(Hear, hear.) He goes on to say that
" equity demanded in favour of the landowner a
protection equivalent to those charges which are placed by
taw on his estate ; that protection was a duty, and the
amount of that duty was a fit 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 be 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 by 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.—( li ear.) "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) considereda most extra•
ainary fact, and he could not account for it. As he had
before said, if he did justice to the House 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 authoiity of Adam Smith had
been quoted as a proof that the price of corn
saidwo u l
ad 0 t
a worn!regulate t
abbeeofvawlaugeeso,fbusitivthere,H, oanndourfaohrlgeotMteonatbdedr,
about th
price
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
wages; he had only taken the passage that suited him—had he
takn another it might not have been so much in print (Mr.
:11. read an extract from his pamphlet, contending that all labour
that depended on their:export trade had been depreciated in value,
and that corn must be reduced to ss. a bushel, or the standard
of silver altered from 7s. 6th 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 wages would be fixed
thereby. 11^ would ask the House, if had been the case ?
Had the rat, of wages been kept at aldue rate with the price of
corn ?
If not, how could they justify in keeping
tip 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 said, you want to disturb all the
existing relations of finance, you would confound the standard
of value. But he denied that they bad any standard of value.