The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-11 00:00:00

worth and station, to the fact, that when food was dear and
high, the causes assigned for it were of a somewhat different
character. It was alleged, as the causes of the evil, that ma-
chinery had increased so much—( Hear, hoar)—that the mis-
chief was owing to the proceedings of the grinding capitalists;
that over-population was at the ttom of it ; that joint-stock
banks were the originating source ; that the field of employ-
ment was too limited for the people—any and all of these rea-
sons were assigned as the causes of dear bread and low wages.
In 1841 and 1842 these were the explanations given of national
distress, while himself, and those who acted with him, and had
done so from the beginning, were sneered at for bringing for-
ward the old story about the corn-laws and free trade. Now,
what was the state they were in in 1845, only three years since
these opinions had been stated. Since then machinery had
greatly extended, the people had increased 1,500,000; joint-
stock banks were more prolific than ever, and there never was a
time money was so plentiful. It c ould not, therefore, be said that
these were the causes of dear bread and low wages. Yet the
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side the House were bound to
give an account of the improvement. The Ministry were
bound to give an explanation of it. The account which the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment had already given was—first, that the improvement had
arisen from the reduction in the price of food; and secondly,
reduction in the amount of protective duties. He said there
was no other way of accounting for it. He denied that the
seasons had been the sole cause, and took credit that the im-
provement was due, in a great measure, to what the Govern-
ment had done in relaxing the protective principle. This was
the especial doctrine from whence all the vast blessings
were alleged to have flowed. The Hon. Gentlemen on the
other side of fee House ought to complain of the policy of
the Government, if they think that high prices are a blessing,
while they on his (Mr. Villiers's) side of the House, had a
right to complain of the Government stopping short. The
advocates of protection, if they were true to their own princi-
ples, had a right to complain of the Government going too far ;
while the advocates of total repeal had an equal right to cam-
plain of their not going far enough.--( Loud cheers.) It was
the tendency of society—and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Peel) had admitted as touch—to pay less attention to agri-
cultural pursuits, and more to manufacturing operations—to
leave the cultivation of the soil, for the production of other
articles of wealth. This, at the present moment,
was the tendency of all progressive countries. For-
merly the greater proportion of the people of thin country
were engaged in agriculture ; now there was only one-third
engaged in agriculture, while there were two-thirds employed
in manufactures. Now, what would be the effect of reducing
the supply of food to this population by the restrictive system ?
Why, that those who had gone into manufacturing pursuits
must either return back to their original employments on the
land to raise food, or else return burdens to their respective
parishes and become paupers. There being two-thirds of the
people engaged in manufactures and commerce, it was quite evi-
ent that when food was scarce that prices must rise, and all
other branches of trade suffer.—( Hear, hear.) Their means
being exhausted in the purchase of food they would cease pay-
ing for manufactured goods; and all who were employed in the
production of such articles would thus be made to suffer from
the want of a market.--( Hear.) The consequence of such a
system was a general deficiency of employmert, a reduction of
wages.—( Hear, hear.) This was the true explanation why
low wages were found to accompany dear food. The effect of
throwing so many people out of employment was to produce
an enormous amount or evil_.( Hear, hear)—not only in the
suffering inflicted on those thus deprived of a market for their
labour, but in the waste of capital in the shape of parish relief,
and the demoralisation that accompanied it. The law that now
existed was of no use, unless it was for the purposes of restric-
tion, and what was the true character of restriction he had just
shown.—( Hear, hear.) He would now show the revolting
and disgusting effects that followed the limited supply of food
under this restrictive system. He would not read the
reports •of 1842, respecting the state of the popula-
tion, so as to harrow up the feelings of the House,
but would merely call their attention to the facts
contained in them in order to illustrate his case. They fully
justified what had been stated by the Noble Lord, the Secretary
fur Foreign Affairs, that " scarcity was the greatest curse in.
flicted by Providence on the country." Though he ( Mr.
Villiers) agreed with the Noble Lord, in his estimate of the
evils of scarcity, he differed with him in considering it a vi-
sitation from Providence. An eloquent gentleman had said
that they should examine a little ere they committed blas-
phemy, by ascribing that to the Deity which arose from
their own erroneous proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) Scarcity
was a curse, yet, at the time of great scarcity in this coun-
try, at that period to which he had referred, a pestilence
had broke out in a transatlantic city, produced by a store of
provisions that could not command a market.—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.") The people of England were complain-
ing of scarcity, and the people of another country, within
ten days' sail of them, were suffering from a pestilence, be-
cause they could not get rid of their provisions.—( Hear. )
They should be cautious how they charged the Deity with
ceasing scarcity, when those things were taking place.
The Han. Gentlemen opposite who were such great advo-
cates for protection—the Hon. Member for Essex, and the
Hon. Member for Lincoln—knew very well of these evils, and
he asked them how they could reconcile themselves to pass
them over, without giving it due consideration—( Hear, hear)
—how they could oppose a thorough revision of the whole
question ?—( Hear, hear.) The Ministry, and those who sup-
ported the Ministry, had considered it right to enlarge the
field of industry, to relieve raw material from the duty which
pressed upon it, and to make other modifications and ameliora-
tions of their commercial code ; but up to that moment they
had not dealt w ith the article of corn.—( Hear, hear.) True,
an alleviation had been made in the English corn-law scale,
and there bad been a Canadian Corn Bill • and in both cases
the Right Hon. Baronet had made the alterations not to in-
crease the quantity of corn so as to remove distress, but for
something else. The former corn-law, it was said, had not
answered the purpose for which it was passed, and the present
one was introduced to remedy its deficiencies ; but that neither
it, or the Canada 801, were ever intended as free-trade mea•
sures, but rather to meet the particular exigencies of the times..
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home De-
partment had stated that the departure from the Corn Bill of
1815, and the Canada Bill, were neither of them intended so
increase food, but to remove defects in the working of previous
laws. It was not long since he ( Mr. Villiers) heard that
same Right Hon. Gentleman speak of the great increase of
population—of its increasing yearly at the rate of 360,000 per-
sons, while, according to the same authority, there were 1,500,000
paupers in England.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") To
meet this state of things he (Mr. Villiers) contended there
must be a change in the system of protection—an alteration
in the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) They had the fact of a
yearly increase of 360,000 in the population, and 1,500,000
pauper, or one-tenth of the whole population in the riche-t
country in the world ; and yet, in the face of these facts, a
protective corn.law was maintained.—( Hear, hear.) Go
throughout the world and they would find allusion continually
made to English pauperism and English corn-laws.—( Cheers. )
The two were invariably mentioned together. They were the
scandal of England throughout Europe—pauperism, and the
corn-laws as the cause of pauperism. He said, upon these
considerations, he had a good right to call for another settle-
ment of this question. He had strong grounds for saying that
up to that time that relaxation of protection, as a measure of
relief to the people, had not been conceded. The law, though
modified in its machinery, still remained the same in prin-
ciple, and, in his opinion, was as li:tle calculated to meet the
wants and cireumstances of the people as the law of 1815.
Precisely the same evils were felt in Holland and in
Belgium as in this country, from the same sort of tam-
pering with the corn-laws. This country could no longer rely
for a supply of corn on those countries, neither could they rely
upon France, for the restrictive system existed in that country
too. The agriculturists of this country gave no encourage-
ment to increase their supply, and he had seen letters from per-
sons engaged in the Baltic trade, which stated that the Ca-
nada Corn Bill had created still greater uncertainty than before.
The change which had been made in the banking system,
though. it might be beneficial to them, he thought would be
attended with ruinous consequences to the manufacturers, for
bullion must be sent out for corn. People must, at all events,
have food, and the revulsion would be sudden and severe.
He clisl not expect that any member of the Government would
put forward that wretched argument, " local taxation," as a
reason for net dealing with this measure. If local taxatie
was a valid reason for refusing change, the respons''„e(te
would be shifted from the landowners to the gentle eon,
who
could deal with it as they pleased ; but it was idle nonsense to
e
talk of total taxation as an argument. He "aen'd that the
:
land had greater burdens than it should ha se, and if the land-
holders were saddled with greater bur' sus, why did they al-
ways refuse inquiry e—( Hear, hear.) No, he did not believe
there were any such peculiar burde„e, and, what was more, he
believed the landowners the,
eselves were not sincere in
the opinion that there were such burdens.—( Hear, hear. )
But if they existed, let then at once be shifted. Let the landed
interest bring in their eeesseunt, and he would venture to say
that the advocates of free trade would deal with it in a spirit of
fairness and caad,our. Let the landowners, he repeated, be
indemnified, beat not by making the food of the people scarce.
The Rigiit tion. Gentleman had, on a previous evenieg, said
that in 'ears of plenty capital punishments were less. There
was nea doubt but disease, sickness, and misery followed, as a
consequence of dear food. The House seemed willing to
consult the advantave of the public on any measure but this.
They took care to have proper railway communication through
the country, and when a railway project was submitted the
Legislature took care that good security should be given for
carrying it out, so that the public might not in
any way suffer from high fares or inconvenient and
dangerous conveyance.— ( Hear.) Why was not the same
sort of security exacted from those who undertook to supply
the country with food ?—( Hear, hear.) In the case of rail-
ways free and open competition was allowed and monopoly dis-
couraged; in corn, competition was prevented and monopolyen-
couraged and fostered.—(Hear, hear.) The Secretary at
War said, let the landed interest alone. Why, they were let
alone from 1834 to 1838, and they all recollected what the con-
sequence TM—starvation and crime in abundance. In March,
18.38, he brought forward a motion on the corn-laws, but he
was then told by two or three embryo Dukes (Cleveland and
Buckingham), then Lords Chandos and Darlington, that
his interference was unseasonable—in four months after
there was the most appalling scarcity. What security had
the Government taken against the recurrence of such a
state of things-? None. Yet the people of England
were
jets 1e
a bad condition. The Report of Lord
Commission showed that thousands of the
eeople of Ireland were starving, and the people of Scot-
land were in so destitute a condition that the Govern-
ment felt it necessary to introduce a poor-law for that coon-
try.---(Hear, hear. y In short, no argument had been adduced,
ground, d on principle, against the repeal of these laws. Theyco
ld never show that the people of England were not en-
titled to have free access to the means of subsistence. No en-
couragement had been shown even to a mit igatii n of the pre-
sent system. His Noble Friend the Member for Leaden had
brought forward a most aderate proposal, but it met wi h
no support from the
other side. They had even refused
to receive feed from
it was as distant as Oneoftheir own colonies, though
the antipodes.--(The Hon. Member
alluded to the Australeirr corn me.ssu-e.) Baronet expesseel that n would he at 565. It Was only 455. ;
The Right Hon.
and the consequence was
country.
10,000,000/, of money were
saved to the people of this coil.
mperemseentatt
moment, when prices were most
eshockHwould not be felt
for an abolition of these laws, f
by those who most dreaded the charier
lsaupposed to be
He would not make
any appeal to those Hors. Gentlemen who w
interested in the continuance of the presentere
Every-
thing that could he said hail been said. Theirw liberality,
justice, honesty, and honour, had been frequently invoked.ra't-
They hail been besought on behalf of the working classela
for the sake of the peace and general prosperity of the country
—and by everything which could move them as men of sense
and feeling. He would only say, that if they did not now
consent to the motion, he should more deeply regret it than
ever he had done before, because he had considered the present
a more fitting opportunity for abolishing the law than had
hitherto been presented. The Hon. Member concluded, amid
cheers,by
moving " That this House resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the
following resolutions:—
" That the corn-law restricts the supply of food, and pre-
vents the free exchange of the products of labour.
" That it is therefore prejudicial to the welfare of the coun
try esiveielly t, raitof the working classes, and has proved
_ A
deluitee 4.Gthes:o f ose benefit the law was designed.
" That it- is i peatent that all restrictions on cern should
be now-abolished:",-",\
7 . XI; OSWALD saathat he had great pleasure in seconding
- • the thatienraiatkwas:erla ad that, under the circumstances, he
'. shourd-hive bartiftl say to induce the House to listen to
v; the ertunieiats of iaktion. Friend who had just sat down, for
N,27:heleitthwevery R9it of the queetitn had been answered by
-
-