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

spected such arguments, he condemned those speeches which
had neither moderation for their means, nor he believed,
justice for their object. He contended that the great object
of the manufacturers was, by cbtaining a repeal of the Corn-
laws, to secure a lower rate of wages, adducing as an authority,
Mr. G. F. Young, and another Hon. Member of that House.
Mr. Young stated that he had conversed much with manufac-
turers on this point, and he had been told that 19-20ths
of that class had this object in view. The question for the
people was, whether they would have a moderately high rare
of prices and high wages, or low prices and low wages. The
Noble Lord also read an extract from a work by Lord Fitz-
williarn, which he considered bore out the same view of the
subject. He would refer to one more casee-that of two cities
on the Continent, Warsaw and Amsterdam. In the former
city, the price of corn was very low, while the labour-
ing classes were generally in a very distressed state ;
whereas in Amsterdam, where the price of corn was high,
the labourers and their families were domfortably fed and
clothed. Now, such being the case, he (Lord Mahon) wished
to know how the theory of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite could
be supported ? He believed the supply of corn should be sup-
plemental and subsidiary. He was much surprised to hear the
statement of the Noble Lord the late Colonial Secretary, on the
subject. The Noble Lord said, that if we were depeud• nt onforeign
countries for a supply of cotton, that was no reason why we
should not endeavour to be independent of them as regarded
corn. But, if it were a disadvantage to be dependent on
them for cotton, would it not also be a disadvantage to has e to
depend on them for corn ?—( Hear, hear.) We ought, then,
to aim at independence. The Noble Lord, the late Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, said this was a childish idea. He talked
of the rich productions of other countries, and then asked
why should our miserable laws stand between our people and the
bounty of Providence ? (Hear, hear.) This language might
do very well for other Members; but how could the Noble
Lord, after talking thus, vote for a sliding scale?—(Hear,hear)
—for surely all his arguments applied as much to a fixed
duty as to a sliding scale.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
On referring to an annual register be would find that the
duty, so much higher tthan that now proposed by his Right
Hon. Friend, was proposed by the Duke of Wellington's Ca-
binet at the beginning of the year 1828 ; and if he carried his
inquiries further, he would find, however incredulously he
might rub his eyes, that Lord Viscount Palmerston was a
member of that Cabinet. . It might have been supposed that
he would not continue in a Cabinet which could propose such
a measure ; but so far from that being the fact, the retirement
of the Noble Lord took place some weeks afterwards, and on
an entirely different question.—("Hear, hear," from the Minis-
terial benches.) Much had been said with respect to depend-
ance on foreign supply. He would advert to two instances in
which sucb dependence might have led to the most serious con-
sequences. First, there was the formidable confederacy of
European nations to which England was exposed at the time
when Napoleon was threatening her with invasion. What
would have been the result had England then been dependent
on France, or any other Continental nation for a supply of
corn ? Why, even the spirit of the English people, however
courageous and determined, would not have enabled them to
hold out against the confederacy which then existed.--( Hear,
hear.) It was well known that two years ago the Government
of France found itself opposed to the Government of this
country with respect to the affairs of Syria. If, then, France,
when placed in hostility to the other nations of Europe, had
been dependent for her supply of food on any other coun-
try, would France have been able to plade herself in the
isolated position she had done, and which she considered to be
consistent with, and due to her honour and dignity ?—( Hear.)
Many countries would be disposed, by the price of corn in Eng-
land, to part with their own harvests and subsist themselves on
inferior grain. He stated this on the authority of the Hon.
Member for Bolton, who in one of his reports stated that the
Tuscan States would very probably send the whole of the wheat
grown in that country to England, and that their own popula-
tion would be fed ow corn imported from the Famine. It also
appeared from the report of one of our diplomatic agents in
Italy that if the English Corn-laws were repealed, the cultiva-
tion of wheat in the Papal States would be considerably in-
creased. Thus it was impossible to foresee the amount of com-
petition to which the British farmer would be exposed. In the
year 1830, a high authority, Sir Henry Parnell, had said that
in his opinion 100 s. was not too high a price for corn. When
Mr. Canning came to deal with the Corn-laws, he thought that
60s. was a fair price, and that opinion was adopted by the Duke
of Wellington and the present Administration. There could
be no doubt that a fair remunernation would be given to the
farmer, and no more. Mr. Sanders of the Manchester Chamber
of Commerce said that the rate of freight for corn from the
Continent would be from 3s. to 45., and the rate from Ireland
to London was higher. This was the opinion of a member
of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. It was therefore
indispensably necessary that agriculture should have protec-
tion. He thought the scale proposed by the Right Hon.
Baronet *as fully adequate to this purpose, and he thought
it would be received by all as a measure of conciliation. He
thought it was better for the agricultural interest to have a
less amount of 'protection with the consent of all parties, than
to struggle for a high protection against the community.
—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the manufacturing classes,
he thought the proposed measure would 'be received by them
as one of conciliation. But he would express his hope
that while the agriculturists were willing to meet them in
this spirit of conciliation that the manufacturing classes would
come forward with a similar disposition.—( Hear, hear.) He
trusted that they would be impressed with the emphatic words
of Curran, who said, that in the course of his life he had seen
that agitation had made many rich men poor, but never a poor
man rich. He did not mean to say that the motion of the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was founded on agitation ;
but they had had annual motions for vote by ballot.—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) They had also had motions
for removing the Bishops from the House of Lords.—( Conti-
nued cheers from the Opposition.) Bnt he would say without
any disrespect to any Hon. Gentleman opposite, whom,ae
doubted not, acted conscientiously in advocating these subjects,
but he felt assured that it would be a long time before they
saw either the removal of the Bishops or the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. ELPHIN STONE, who was at first inaudible in the
gallery, said the only object for which protection was given to
the landowner was, that they were subject to burihens which
the other members of the community were not. The rates
usually levied 'were the poor-rate, the county-rate, and the
land-rate. Now, with regard to the poor-rate and the county-
rate, it was well known that all property beneficially occupied
was subject to these rates, and therefore the landowners only
paid their fair proportion of taxes. Now, for instance, he
would take a certain parish in which many Hon. Members
resided, viz., the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square.
He found that in the last year the rates in that
parish amounted to 37,0001., of which they expended
12,0001. in the relief of the poor, and the remaining 25,0001.
were handed over to the county gentlemen to pay their county
rates. With regard to the highway rates, it was well known
that the inhabitants of towns and the inhabitants of villages
paid very large awns in repairing their own highways and
streets, as well as the landed proprietors. He found that in
the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, they paid no
less a sum than 25,000/. in repaving the streets ; and these two
sums were larger than the county-rates put together. Now,
he wished to see upon what this claim of protection tvas
founded; because he thought he could show to the House the
landed interest were large debtors to the State.—( Hear, hear.)
When these taxes were first imposed in 1693, they *ere put on
in this way—namely, that the rates should be from one shilling
to four shillings in the pound in proportion to the rental
of the country.—( Hear, hear.) It was then estimated
that the rental of the country was 10,000,0001., and
the produce of the tax was 2,000,0001., but land shortly after-
wards greatly increased in value, in consequence of the trade
and commerce of the country increasing, and the landed in-
terests then pressed Parliament to pass an Act, making the
land-tax then levied perpetual, so that while the rental of the
country increased from ten to forty millions, the land-tax re-
mained. Thus were the landed interests indebted to the public
to the amount of about 8,000,0001. ' Then, with respect to the
legacy duty, it was well known that on the decease of any per-
son, personal property was heavily taxed, and produced a large
revenue to the country. It was estimated that if real property
was subject to the same duty as personal property, the
revenue would be increased no less than 1,000,000/.
a-year, so that these two taxes taken together,
caused the landed interest to be indebted to the
country in the sum of nine millions sterling.—(Hear,
hear.) He had taken the trouble to look through various
taxes which had been repealed since the year 1815. He found
that certain taxes had been repealed, which when levied pressed
only on the landed gentry, while the aggregate of taxes pressed
on the other classes of the community. Those taxes repealed
amounted to no less a sum than 995,0001. per annum, so that
with this sum added to the other the landed gentry had con-
trived to keep ten millions of money in their pockets, while the
remainder of the public were paying heavier taxes than for-
merly. But even supposing there may be some ground for
protection to the landowner, in consequence of corn coming
from other countries, they had protection in this way—if they
admitted three bushels of corn he believed the estimated expenses
would be from 6s. to 7s. • but three bushels of corn were grown
on every acre of land, and thus would they have a protection
of nearly a guinea imposed on every acre of land, and he (Mr.
Elphinstone) thought that was sufficient protection. But this
subject was inquired into in a Committee on agricultural dis-
tress, when every witness was cross-examined as to the nature
of the burdens imposed on the landholder. The only answers
were —" You ought to repeal the window tax and the riding-
horse duty, and if these two taxes were repealed, it would
afford a great protection to the landed interest." One great ob-
jection to any tax on corn was, that it pressed heavily on the
poor, and was not felt by the rich. Take the case of an _
agricultural labourer in the country round Hertford (as we un-
derstood), whose income was about 261. a year. Suppose
the man had a wife and four children. The price of the 41b.
loaf in this country was 9d., and 6d. on the Continent; that is
to say, on every 41b. of bread that is consumed by the agricul-
tural labourer, 3d. is to be paid to the landowner. The la-
bouring man and his family consumed 41bs. of bread every day
in the year, at least they ought to do so, and thus the tax paid
to the landowner of this country by the poor man amounted to
31. or 41., or 171. per cent. on his income. The Noble Lord
who had just sat down had introduced the subject of wages, and
expressed an opinion founded on mistake, for he (Mr. Elphin-
stone) believed that wages in no way depended on the price of
food, but depended alone on the demand and supply
of labour. For example, he would take the case of Ame-
rica and Ireland.. In Ireland provisions were very
dear, and the wages of labour at almost the lowest point at
which life could be supported. They had evidence that wages
were so low that the manufacturing popoulation in the north of
Ireland were so reduced that many of them had been known to
go to the starch manufactories and devour the refuse which
was thrown away in this and other countries when provisions
were cheap. In America it was just the contrary, they had pro-
visions cheap and wages high. Capital was employed, and the
working man was able to find a master and employment. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, estimated the
price of foreign wheat brought into this country at 403.
quarter. Now, let them calculate what was annually extracted
from the pockets of the people.—( Hear, hear.) The average
price of wheat during the last few years was 575. to 58s. per
quarter, this being 17s. higher than the Right Hon. Baronet
had computed that corn might be introduced into this country.
If they assumed the consumption of this country to be
25,000,000 of quarters annually, they had something like
20,000,000/. of money extracted yearly from the pockets of
the poor, which otherwise might be employed in the purchase
of some of the comforts of life. The Corn-laws not only pre-
vented the labourer obtaining employment here, but their ope-
ration caused competition to be raised in America with our own
manufacturers. They hid it stated by a Commission of Inquiry
Sheffield
t
fothat we were losing the markets for our manufactures abroad,
Germanyradea
aund
d of
to
Switzerland were successfully competing with
us. Mr. Ibbotsors, of Sheffield, had stated that five-eighths of the
ee
nawmta out
rostnoe vy
a 3 America,
the butexr oo
rat i n
ofg tostt
et e
whichCorn-lawsw
a
threii principles
worked up in America into scissors and knives, and thus the
trale was
byt at
the
the continent of Europe.
Now,ot n- int w iis
of eto their
shrds. his evidence was corro-
boratedp rts to the different countries of
te pine, we
Be3a3p otrbti sd
qt to a
ntty
Bel-
gium 18,000,060 lb;
had increased to 23,000,0001bs To Holland, in the year
article 200
1830, we exported of the same •,
0001bs and in 1833
it amounted to the large quantity of 11,000,000
lbs. The Right
Hon. Baronet, in his speech in had stated the official value ofbringinggoods
forward the Corn-laws,
with exported from this
country to Europe, in the years 183 1839, and 1840. He
(Mr. Elphinstone) had read over the different different estimates, and
he found them to differ from that
Baronet. He found that in the
year stated by the Right Hon.
69,000/ of goods of official value,
1833 we exported
and
had risen to 2,000,000/. (The Hon. Gent.inthieBn4f fthiisadsutnio
the exports of 1840 and 1841, but there was rhe er
the House that they were not heard in the gallery.)somue noise in
in
barassment to this country consequent upon the Right rn-
Hon.
Baronet's measure would be co, ss -
isaiserably aggravated by