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

Member for London advocated a fixed duty of ;Bs.—(Cries
" Divide.'') But he did not state what ought to be called, or what
ought not. to be called, burdens. They did not apprehend
the arithmetic of the case—they did not understand political eco-
nomy enough for the subject ; and yet, in passing a Corn-law, they
should understand the peculiar burdens which affected the agri-
culturists.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He could neither get
from the Right Hon. Baronet, nor from the Noble Lord an ex-
planation of those burdens. And when he went out of the
House, the first authority that met him was that of Mr.
M'Culloch, who says the land bears peculiar burdens, and he there.
fore advocates a fixed duty of ss. The next was Mr. Tooke, who
stated that the utmost the land could claim was Is. per quarter,
and he thought he could get the Anti-Corn League to make them
a present of that.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
The Hon. Member proceeded (amidst loud and persevering cries
of " Bar, bar," " Order, order," " Hear, hear," " Read, read,"
&c.) to contend that a fixed duty would enable fo-
reign growers to anticipate the wants of the country, so that corn
should never rise to an excessiveprice. He concluded by declaring
that he had been reared In a respect for the aristocracy, and he
should wish to see them show themselves as the friends of every great
popular measure which tended to advance the rights and liberties of
mankind "—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide," amidst which the
Hon. Gentleman sat down.
Mr. GILL, who spoke amidst the greatest confusion, said that
after seven night's debate, he was unwilling to occupy the House,
but he was bound to say that he thought it would be Injustice to
the agriculturists to do away with the protection all at once
Whilst he made these observations with reference to the immedi.
ate and total repeal of the Corn-laws, he could assure the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton that he had made them from no want
of sympathy on his own part for the 36,000 he represented in that
House. They felt great sympathy for the distress that had
been so feelingly pourtrayed in that House, but he believed that
the community would not derive any advantage from a total re-
peal of the Corn-laws. It was his opinion that they would derive
an equal benefit from a duty of ss. lie thought if the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had confined himself to a low
duty, he would have carried the voice of the whole of
that side of the House with him.—(Cries of " Divide, divide."
He preferred a fixed duty to a sliding scale, because he thought
the former would benefit the people by ensuring the steadiness
of price. He admitted that the scale proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet would be better than the one at present in exist.
ence ; but having paid that tribute. to it, he should not feel
justified in saying anything further in its favour.—(Hear.)
He wculd not trouble the House, because he would have another
opportunity of addressing them when the Bill was before the House.
—(Loud ironical cheers, cries of " Order, order," and considerable
confusion.) He believed that the ccnstituencies that had sent the
Hon. Member to that House, would regard that House not
in the most favourable light. It appeared to him
that they were degenerating from the character of legislators.
—(Loud ironical cheers.) He hoped that when the Bill was before
the House that the plan proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet
would be modified.
Mr. FIELDEN rose amidst loud cries of Divide, divide, followed
by ironical cheers and " Order." The Hon. Gentleman spoke in an
extremely low tone of voice, and said that if Hon. Gentlemen
would but listen to him, he would not detain them
for more than five minutes. He was one of those
who, notwithstanding the many speeches that had been made in
favour of it, did not think that the Corn-laws were a benefit to the
country, for he was convinced that it would be better for this
country if a free trade was opened in corn, which would cause pro-
visions to be low. They had had protection for 26 years, but they
had not grown sufficient corn for the people, therefore they were
not entitled to protection. If it was necessary that protection
should exist, he should be willing to grant it, but they must
give an assurance that they would grow sufficient
corn for the people.—(Hear.) They would not allow
them to go into foreign countries for coin, while
the people were starving for the want of it. if this was the
case, how could the Corn.laws be a benefit to the country? In one
past of the British dominions there were 1,700 inhabitants perish.
ing of hunger, and yet they would not prevent those 1,700 people
from famishing. Was it not a disgrace that 1,700 people—the
manufacturers of Paisley, who were engaged In the manufacture
of fabrics of the most beautiful workmanship, to grace the per.
sons of their wives and daughters, should be now in a state of want of
the actual necessaries of life, and that three Ministers of the Crown
should rise in their places, and beseech Hon. Members of that House to
pass no law which would afford the starving thousands any relief ?
—(Cries of" Divide, and order." The gentlemen had been called
on year after year to turn their attention to the sufferings of the
working people, and affbrd them some relief. They had refused to do
this, and in his (Mr. Fielden's) opinion, they were not worthy of
the sympathy of the country: He should vote for his Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton, and he should do so because they
had thrown the poor on their own resources. They were no longer
entitled to protection, and whatever might be the sentiments in that
House, they might depend upon it, that the mighty interests of the
multitude out of doors depended upon the repeal of the Corn-laws,
arid that they would never rest till they obtained their repeal.
If the Hon. Baronet had now the moral cougage to take the bull
by the horns, and deal fairly by the people, there was no doubt of
Isis success in carrying a useful measure for the regulation of the
corn trade, and the result would be that the country would be con-
siderably improved.
Sir J. EASTHOPE rose to address the House amidst loud
cries of " Divide.") Silence having been after some time obtained,
he said that were it not for the peculiar situation in which
lie was placed by living in an agricultural district, and
representing a very large borough, he would not have
troubled the House at all. He had listened with the utmost
attention to the debate, and he then rose merely to explain
why he gave his vote In favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton, he (Sir J. E.) had given the subject a great deal
of consideration, and nothing that he had heard could satisfy
him that the food of the people should be taxed for the sup-
port of the realm ; lie could assign other reasons why
he had voted against what might be considered
his own interest, but he thought it was but justice, and therefere
lie would vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton ; there was merely one other observation which he
would make, that was with reference to what had fallen from the
Honourable Member for Donegal, who stated that the
agricultural interests of Ireland would be materially injured
by the repeal of the Corn-laws. He (Sir J. Easthope\ wonld
merely ask the Hon. Gentleman whether he thought it possible
that any law could be enacted that could place the agricultural
interest of Ireland in a worse condition than they are now.
Mr. VILLIERS said that he would not intrude upon the
House at that late hour, but he ws s sure he would
not prevent a cool consideration of the question, after the speech
of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. The Hon. Gentleman
who delivered that speech could not be blamed, and he was con-
vulsed wills pleasure and satisfaction at the delivery of that
speech—a speech which seemed to cast the most se.
were censure upon the manufacturing classes— ( Hear)—
which censured most grossly the objebts and motives of those who
brought forward this question, and which seemed to him (Mr.
Villiers) to include, in its censure, all the manufacturing and
agricultural interests of the country. That speech was received
with a degree of satisfaction he had never witnessed in that House,
and he was of opinion that so striking was that speech, that it
gave a decided character to the question now under their considers.
Lion. He defied any person who had witnessed the manner in
which that speech was received, was cheered, and applauded, with-
out seeing that it met with the entire approbation of Ho-
nourable Gentlemen. Therefore, those who had cheered
and encouraged the Honourable Member for Knaresborough,
strictly identified themselves with Isis views.--( Loud cheers.)
However, there were two statements made by the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough which, I must say decidedly and distinctly,are wholly
unfounded in fact —(" Hear, hear," and " Oroer, order.") One of
those statements was, that Use petitions presented to this House
against the Corn-laws had been paid for.—(Loud cries of " No,
no.") Hon. Gentlemen might now deny it, but he (Mr. Villiers)
declared positively, that what he said was the fact.—("No,"no.) He
took dawn the words which were distinctly, " That all the petitions
which were brought before that House against the Corn.laws had
been procured by money."—(" No, no," from the Opposition.) He
repeated it in the presence of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough;
again he said that that Hon. Member distinctly stated that the pe-
titions against the Corn.laws presented to the House had been
procured by money.—(Several Members on the Opposition, amotsgst
whom was the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, then rose from
their seats, and repeated their dissent from the assertion of
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.) The Hon. Gentleman then
said—Well, then, as the Hors. Member for Knaresborough denies
that he has said so, it amounts to an acknowledgment that those
petitions had not been procured in that way.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman said the working classes were not opposed
to the Corn-laws. He (Mr. Villiers) said many of them were.
—(Laughter and "Oh.") His own constituents were—many others
were. He had not mooted this question so many years without
knowing the feelings of the people on it; and therefore he now
affirmed that a large body of the working classes were as in-
tensely opposed to the Corn-laws as any other cla s of person
could be.—(Cheers.) As for the charges which the Hon. Slim.
ber brought against the manufactnrers accusing them of plunder,
robbery, and fraud, he supposed the lion. Gentleman was pre-
pared to prove them ?
Mr. FERRAND—Decidedly.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. VILLIERS—It must be obvious to the House and the
country that the charges brought 'against the manufacturers sub-
scribing to the Anti-Corn-law League (multi not stop here. The
name and circumstances of every one of these subscribers were
known, and an investigation must take place. They must see who.
User the Honourable Member could establish his charge of
fraud and robbery, after having stated it amidst the accla-
mations of the House; for he (Mr. Villiers) could hardly see
a member on the other side who had not cheered the Honour-
able Member for Knaresborough, and of course those who
cheered him, would insist upon his making his case 80.3d7-
(Cheers,) Notwithstanding Isis Imputations against those whoags-
tated this question, he (Mr. Villiers) affirmed that he was justified
in bringing forward his motion. Justified by his knowledge of the
oils caused by the Corn-laws—by his knowledge of the feelings
of the people—ard justified even by the plan of the Right
_Hon.
Baronet—for that measure was in reality a concession, and the
feelings and opinions of those who opposed the Corn-laws—(Cheers)
—for, otherwise, why should the Right Hon. Baronet bring for-
ward a measure which would please none—would relieve none—
and was not even satisfactory to the Government itself?—(Cheers.)
This, therefore, was a sign to the people that they must persevere.
—(Cheers.) Let them see from this that if they continue to agi-
tate for a repeal of the Corn.laws, they must be successful.—
(Cheers.) As for his opponents, they had opposed his motion by
repetitions and stale arguments.—(Cheers and laughter.) There
was nothing new in what they said.—(Cheers and laughter.) Some
Hon. Gentleman said, only convince me that it is
good for the people to have bread enough, and I'll
vote for you."—(A laugh) This was all that could
be urged by those who contended that less was better than none.
This was all that the Hon. Member for the West Riding of York-
shire could say.—(Hear, hear.) There was another point to be no-
ticed. This was an assertion that there were vested interests in
agriculture, and connected with it, which he disregarded. Now
if the minority ws re small, it would be seen that
this argument had weighed with many. Now he
was not so dishonest as to disregard any vested
interest, but he would ask where was this principle to end ? But
every such argument against the repeal of the Corn-laws applied
equally to the plan for their modification.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Would not even the adoption of a moderate fixed duty disturb
much of the capital invested in agriculture; for it would throw
bad lands out of cultivation, and it was in those lands
that the roost capital was sunk? (Hear, hear, hear.)
If the protection was withdrawn from land, they might expect that
some would be thrown out of cultivation ; but what consolations
would it be to the owners, to find that if the measure hail been
more extensive, some others would suffer as well as themselves ?
The argument of the Noble Duke, who had now left
the Government, was the only straightforward one ;
either the public had a right to repeal, or they
had a right to protection, anti if they had a right to
protection, why abandon it ? If the people have a right to re-
peal, why not grant it ? However, he might differ from the
Noble Duke, he could not but respect the sternness
and consistency with which he maintained his prin-
ciples. This question stood entirely by itself, it was
a question between protection, and total and immediate repeal. He
contended that the people had a right to repeal, and they had not
shown any right to protection. He, therefore,
considered that this
measure was founded in justice. Ile could
not yet understand the
argument of those Gentlemen who said they could not
vote with. him, and yet agreed with him in principle,
Ins the beginning of their speeches they had the most violent ti.
rades against the Corn-laws; that they were founded on injustice,
and maintained for the benefit of a particular class. They say
everything that could eslcite the people against the law, yet all of
a sudden they stop short, and that industrious and useful
as it is, they cannot vote for a sudden suppression of injustice.
The time had come when the law ought to cease, and he pro-
posed a resolution declaratory of its ill effects, and that its conse-
quences to the country no longer warranted its continuance.
They wished the House to declare that they ought not to be continued,
and that was the reason he had proposed a resolution declaring that
the duties called Corn.laws should now cease and determine, He
was sorry to hear the Noble Lord below declare that he intended to
vote against him. But he certainly understood the position of