|044 V5 O z H X m n o z r > CO r LIBRARY unjvemsiTy op CALlFORMlA ' SAN CMEdO ' irt*iVERS*TY OF CALIFORfllA, SAM DIE^i lA JOLLA. CAllfORNIA ON THE CORN-LAWS. THE SPEECH Hon. C. p. VILLIERS, M. P., IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 1st of April, 1840. EXTRACTED FROM HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 1840. THOMAS CURSON HANSARD, PATERSOSTER-ROW. HF US' SPEECH, &c. Sir, Ik rising to propose the question of which I have given notice, I beg to apo- logize to the House for its postponement till this evening. I assure the House that it proceeded from a cause which I could not control, arising as it did from in- disposition — an excuse, indeed, which I could offer with great force this evening, but learning that many persons expected that the subject would be discussed this week, 1 determined that, if possible, no other delay should occur on my account. The circumstance, however, only adds to the many considerations that now present themselves to my mind to make me regret that it is still in my hands to make this proposition to the House. The subject is now assuming a very serious aspect in this country ; it is engaging the attention, as it is affecting the interest of the great mass of the community, and whatever the House may think, questions of this character, affecting as they do the commerce, the employment, and the condition of the peo- ple, excite among them an interest far B 2 exceeding any other. I wish, therefore, that th§ question was with those who could do more justice to it than myself, and still more that it was with those who had the power to do the people justice. I had, indeed, well hoped that 'ere now, that the landed proprietary of this country, would, in consideration of that deep distress which is now pervading and hearing down the productive classes of our community, have given some sign of intending to relax the rigours of their law, and that what has hitherto been denied to the claims of justice, might yet have been granted on the grounds of mercy. Three months have, however, passed away since the Parliament assembled, and not a whisper of such an intention has been heard ; on the contrary, the same querulous note has been sounded in another place about agitation, and the same haughty and ill-placed observations respecting its object ; while, in this House, we have seen that the usual efforts have been made to procure some proof of opinion in favour of the law, but, in truth, proving nothing but the influence so commonly used by the landholders over their dependents ; and showing nothing, as it appears, but the determination of the class to maintain the law unchanged. Having, however, mooted this matter before in this House, some confidence is placed in me that I will not suffer it to slumber ; and I cannot, there- fore, allow more time to escape without asking the majority of this House to recon- sider the decision they gave on it last Ses- sion, and seriously to review the grounds on which they rested their opinion, and which I apprehend to have been, that the law works well, that it has satisfied the purpose for which it was enacted, and that it ought to be maintained. A bold con- elusion, I think, to have pronounced last Session^ but one I think, that will re- quire more courage to repeat; I, there- fore, shall restate some of those facts and arguments which have led me to the honest conviction that the law is bad, that it has worked ill, that it has caused, and is caus- ing great loss and suffering to the produc- tive classes, and that it now casts upon the community a fearful addition to those bur- thens which it is at all times compelled to endure : and were I to state further what prompts me to press this matter again on the House, it is that I believe that a day has net passed since the last discussion, that either from personal suffering or greater intelligence, fresh converts have not been made to the repeal of this law, while I do not believe that one human being would be produced, who having been either indifferent to the law before or op- posed to the law, has since become a con- vert to its continuance ; and I regret the importance which I know I must attach to this circumstance, for I fear it will greatly outweigh any argument that I could adduce on the subject. For I cannot persuade myself, that unless there was a general impression in both Houses of Parliament, either that great ignorance or general in- difference prevailed among the people on the question, that those who take a promi- nent part in these discussions, would utter the things which we hear on the subject. For not only do we hear that the Corn-law is a necessary evil, but that it is a positive advantage ; and the advocates of repeal have it thus cast upon them to prove that an abundance of the essential of life, which in its abundance gives further means of satisfying the wants of life, is better than that dearness and scarcity that deteriorates the condition of all. However, if this task has to be performed again, the moment is, perhaps, favourable for the purpose. For it is almost difficult to believe, that if those who argued in favour of the law last year, could have known that their statements would have followed so close upon the heels of events which afforded to them such complete denial, that they would have uttered them, or indeed perhaps if it could have been expected that we on this side should have had the sad advantage which the distress of the country this year affords us, the decision on the question might have been different. I am not going to deny, however, that there has been great misapprehension on the subject of the Corn-laws, that mystery has been artfully thrown round the question, and that thousands are only, at this day, view- ing the question in the true simplicity of its character. I shall, therefore, consider it with all the calmness and deliberation which should attach to a question that admitted of dispute ; and I shall, as I have done on former occasions, proceed to consider the object of the law. The object of the Corn- law, then, may be simply stated to be, to limit the quantity of food imported from abroad, for the purpose of raising and maintaining the price of that which is grown at home, this is the object as it is to be collected from the avowed purpose as well as the provision of the law. The policy of such legislation seems to belong to the present century, and we are now living under the third legislative experi- ment that has been made for the purpose. In 1804, Mr. Western's bill passed into law, this was followed by the law of 1815, and we are now living under the enact- ment of 1828. Each of these laws have professed the same purpose, namely, to keep lands in cultivation, to keep the people in employment, and to secure to the culti- vator a certain price for his produce; to each, also, have the same objections been offered, namely, that such policy may be at variance with the public good, that the interests of the community may be sacrificed by maintaining particular soils in cultiva- tion ; and that, as the price of produce depended upon circumstances beyond the reach of legislation, that the law was only cal- culated to mislead those who relied upon it. The justice of such objections with respect to two of those laws is now matter of his- tory. Mr. Western procured his bill by stating that thousands of acres would otherwise be thrown out of cultivation, and that a proportionate number of labourers would be thus rendered destitute. Now, Sir, I believe I state the fact, when I say that after the passing of that bill, that the ports never were closed ; and that so far from land going out of cultivation from this circumstance, that within six or seven years after it had passed, produce had risen nearly 300 per cent above the price that he had fixed as remunerative. Next came the law of 1815, which proposed to make the community pay for its food at the price which it had reached during the war, and in a depreciated currency, and that for ever. I have a right to say, that that was the deliberate intention of the Legislature, because there was an hon. Member, at that time in this House, whose eager and able exertions on that occasion to expose what he called the iniquity and injustice of the law, excited general attention, and he made a distinct proposition that if such a law were to pass, that it should not exist be- yond the time when we should place our 8 currency on a more sure basis— in short, when we should resume cash payments. I need not say I allude to Mr. Baring, who has since become Lord Ashburton. He made that proposition to the House, but it was rejected. Sir, it is no longer matter of question, that that law was a failure in every respect. It failed to give profit to the producer — it failed to give plenty to the people— it failed to maintain steadi- ness of prices, and it failed even in that which might have been expected from it, namely, in giving wisdom to those who projected it. It was introduced amidst the curses of the people — it seems to have expired without more favour from its friends. But in 1828, its failure did not seem to be ascribed to the purposes which it sought to obtain, but only to the means which were adopted for its attain- ment. It was thought, still, that it was possible to fix the price by law at which the produce could be sold, and to secure the cultivator the price which he expected. It was only considered the means had not yet been discovered by which that object should be attained, and it was in 1828 that this discovery was thought to have been made, and the scheme of a sliding scale was suggested for meeting the wishes of the agriculturists ; and I take it we are now to consider whether this scheme, which was devised in 1828, has succeeded or not. There are some who think that it has worked well — that it has accomplished every object intended, and I hope they will prove their case. I certainly am of opinion that it has only verified every prediction of evil that was likely to attend it, and I think I can show it has done so. I do not think the public require much information on the subject ; but they are watching this 9 discussion, and I trust that they will con- sider well on which side the truth prevails. Now, Sir, I contend that the present law is a complete failure; and when I fay so, I refer, perhaps, rather to its avowed ob- ject than to that which may have been intended, though not avowed, I contend that it has failed to benefit agriculture, though perhaps it has succeeded in greatly raising the value of land. And it is very important here to distinguish clearly between what is called agriculture and the ownership of land. These interests are, in many respects, distinct ; because, however, in some degree, they are the same, the landowners claim for themselves all the arguments usually ad- vanced in support of the law that have only reference to agriculture. Now, the fact is, the connexion is not nearer between the cultivation of the land and its ownership, than between a house and the business car- ried on in it ; or between the merchant and his banker, who may lend him the capi- tal to conduct his business ; or between the manufacturer and the person of whom he purchases the raw material. These inter- ests are in some material points distinct, and nobody confounds them ; and there is no more reason for confusion between the cultivator and the owner of the soil, than between those interests. The landowner may hardly know where his property is, he may be unable to distinguish one kind of produce from another ; he may live abroad, and know no one connected with his pro- perty but the receiver of his rents; and again, the cultivator may be equally igno- rant of any circumstance connected with the ownership of the land, beyond the price he pays for its use. The distinction, how- ever, is so obvious that I would not have troubled the House by stating it, but for a 10 singular confusion which is made in this respect in arguing for the law, and that under the general term agriculturists, we hear the most exaggerated pretensions put forward, based on the assumed interest of landlord, farmer, and labourer. These interests, however, being in so many re- spects distinct, it is important that they should be so viewed. Now, with re- spect to the necessity or policy of legisla- ting at all for the particular interest of the agriculturist or the farmer ; what does it consist in ? What would he desire the law to do for him if it could ? Why, probably, to enable him to get the return for his capital that he expected, and that is, what I suppose, every capitalist would wish ; in fact, to be made sure in his calculations, and obtain the profit he expects ; and this is, in truth, what the Corn-law promises it will do for him, and does hold out the ex- pectation of something like certainty and steadiness in this respect. We have now to examine how far it has realized his expecta- tions : the first fact then that is to be ob- served is, that since the passing of this law, there has been every variation in the price of produce, and that the farmer has expe- rienced great distress and disappointment, which at least seems to lead to the conclu- sion that this law has not averted the evil apprehended by the agriculturists. But the next question is, whether this has not been actually caused by the law ? This I believe can be almost demonstrated, and I collect the proof of it from the agri- culturists themselves — not to have referred to their opinions as it has been collected by this House, seems to have been an omission in the previous discussions upon this ques- tion ; the fact is, that those who complain of this law, are usually so much occupied 11 with showing the gross injustice of the law, that they have as yet paid little attention to the evidence against it by those for whose interest it is professed to be main- tained ; but there has, however, been a great body of evidence collected by tlie House, and given under circumstances which compel us to give it credit ; and to which the public ought to have its attention directed ; for I do say, that if there is one conclusion before another to which a candid inquirer would arrive after reading that evidence, it is, that the law is extremely prejudicial to the farmer — and that it has oc- casioned distress and disappointment to all of that class who have trusted to it. This is an important consideration, because there arc many now who distinctly see the injustice of the law, but yet from fear of the conse- quences of its repeal to the persons who have invested their capital upon the faith of its continuance, are yet slow in calling for its repeal ; and now, at the risk of wearying the House hoping to be excused by the importance of the question, I shall proceed to read some extracts of the evi- dence collected in 1836, by the agricultural committee appointed in that year. The first person whose evidence I will advert to is that of Ellis, a Leicestershire farmer, who is asked whether the distress of the time had any connexion with the Corn- law — and he says in reply that he thought the present duty too high, because it gave a fictitious value to land, and that it gave the farmers an expectation of something that could never occur; and on that ac- count, it holds up the value of land ficti- tiously. This question is then put to him ; then you think it induced the tenants to make larger offers than in the result they have been able to pay ? I think so, far- 12 mers are prone to expect high prices, and tliey have been expecting something that was not likely to occur. — Mr. Parker, an Essex farmer, is asked : — " Do you consider, that the distressed state of those farmers can be at all attributed to the rents not having been lowered sufficiently in time ? — I should say very materially, the land- lords not prudently lowering their rents ear- lier than they have done. " The farms would have been in better con- dition? — Yes; it has been by persisting in the high rents that the farms wouW have been worked out of condition, and then no person would take them except at a very low rent. " Do you think, that they (the Corn-laws) hold out hopes of a continuance of a higher rate of price than can ever be realised ? — The Corn-laws have been in operation but a few years, they commenced with large foreign sup- plies ; we have been only put on our own growth the last four years ; I do not think if the present laws continue, that we should be often interfered with by foreign supply, " Take the whole of the farmers in the county of Essex, do you think, that they are possessed of as much capital now, as they were in 1821 ?— Certainly not. " Then they have been labouring now for fifteen years, and have expended a great deal of industry, and skill, and capital, with no return at all, as a body ? — They have been parting with their capital, a great many of them, to their landlords, and to other persons, whose charges upon them were excessively high." Mr. Cox, of Buckinghamshire, gives this evidence : — " For the last three years you have been farming that land to a profit ? — Decidedly not to a profit. " Should you say that the cultivation of Buckinghamshire has fallen off within the last eight or ten years ? — I should say so, in the neighbourhood in which I live. / 13 "In what respect? — The land is getting very foul and overcropped ; in some places, driven further than it should be." Mr. John Houghton, a gentleman of great experience, states : — "Have you not arable farms in the county of Buckingham, over which you are steward ? — Yes, I hsve. " What is their state now compared with the state of the grazing farms to which yon allude? — On the heavy clay lands the distress is very great, more than it is on the turnip and barley lands, or grass land. " How do you account for that distress upon the clay lands ? — From the low price of wheat. " Do you find, that the capital of the farm- esr has been dimishing? — Certainly; I think the great distress has been on the heavy land farms. " Have their farmers been paying their rents out of their produce, or out of their capital? — If you take the heavy clay land, certainly out of their capital. Mr. .John Rolfe, farmer of Buckingham- shire, gives this evidence : — " Do you use wheat for any other purpose, but that of human food now ? — I have not done it ; some have ground wheat for the pigs ; some have given it to their horses, but that was principally the grown wheat of the last harvest but one. " What is the cost of the cultivation of your farm per acre now, as compared with what It was some years ago ? — The cost of cultivation is very much the same ; there is a little differ- ence in the price of labour. " Can you state how rents are paid in your district ? — Rents have heretofore, till the last two years, been very well paid. " How have they been paid since 1833 ? — They have been paid very badly. " Even on the light soils you speak of ? — Yes. 14 " There is more wheat grown upon land now ? — Yes. " Supposing there should not be a corres- ponding demand for wheat in proportion as that class of land increases, it must make the heavy clay land less profitable ? — Yes. You do not complain of the price of mutton now? — No. " Of wool ?— No. " Of barley ? you cannot expect much in- crease in that.''— No, not much. " Oats ? — Oats we should wish for a little increase. " Beans ? — If we had 4s. a quarter more, we should not have much fault to find. " The chief complaint is on account of the depression in the price of wheat? —Yes, that is where the farmer is suffering most ; that is where he looks for his rent in the spring of the year, when he should have the price of his wheat to raise the money for his rent ; when he is looking for a large sum of money to meet his payments ; when he comes to thresh out and carry to market, his expenses almost take the whole price. "What will become of the landlord? — We shall be all beggars together." Mr. John Curtis, another Buckinghara- shire farmer says — " Has the capital of the farmers in your opinion diminished ? — I should say consider- ably. " Will you state in what way farmers are worse off? — In the first place, they have cropped their land hard, and it is now getting into bad condition ; it is getting foul, and the stock diminishes. " Now looking at the different descriptions of soils ; first of all the grass, has the produce of your grass enabled you to pay the rent upon the grass land? — What little grass I have is very good; that is the best part of my farm. " You have stated that the condition of the labourers is good ; you mean those that are 15 employed ? — Tliose that are employed ; and there are very few out of employment. " Chairman : Has the poor-rate been re- duced lately ? — Yes ; the Poor-law bill works well with us." Mr. John Kemp, an Essex farmer gives this evidence : — " Do you consider, then, that the quantity of wheat in the market has been the cause of the depression of the price ? — I should say so. "Has the capital of the farmers in your neighbourhood, and under your knowledge, diminished or not? — Very much diminished. " What was the rate in your parish previous to the passing of the Poor-law Bill, and what is it now ? — Our expenditure in the parish used to be 1,6001., and last year it was not more than 1,200/. " What is the state of the small farmer about you; the man who rents an hundred acres ? — As bad off as the poor man. "Are farmers paying rents from their pro- fits or their capital ? — From their capital. "Taking the labourers as a body, are they as well employed as they used to be? — They have been very well employed for the last three years. " Do you think, that upon the average, the higherprice, from a scarce season, compensates the farmer for the deficiency of his crop ? — No ; for at the time when corn was so high, about six years ago, during the wet seasons, we were certainly worse off than we are now, and wheat was much higher." This is from the evidence of Mr. Thurl- wall, of Cambridgeshire : — "What, in your opinion, is the condition of the tenantry generally in your neighbour- hood ? — I think verging on insolvency, gene- rally in the most desperate state that men can possibly be." Mr. Charles Page, in Essex, farmer, is asked :— 16 " Have you lost or gained this last year upon your farm? — In fact, I have lost every year since I have been in business. " Have you lost principally upon the wheat or the barley crop ? — The loss upon the wheat crop I think is the most material." Mr. George Babbs is asked :— " Do you believe whether the farmers are paying their rent out of capital, or out of the profits of their farms ? — I believe the farmers have been paying their rents out of the capi- tal they employ. "Is that your case "^ — It has been my case. " Has the land been cropped harder in your neighbourhood than it used to be ? — I think it has." Mr. Charles Howard is asked: — " Taking the period since the last commit- tee sat in 1833, what do you consider to be the comparative state of the farming interests now and at that time ? — Decidedly and pro- gressively worse. " Do you take into your consideration every species of land, or one species of land more than another? — I think upon the sheep farms, the upland farms, from the increased demand which there has been for sheep, the distress has rather decreased ; sheep have been very high. "Then with respect to the low-land farms? — Their situation has been progressively much worse. " You stated that in consequence of the de- pressed state of the farming interest of that country, the landlords have permitted a con- siderable portion of the old grass lands to be ploughed up ; has that tended to precipitate the affairs of the tenant, or otherwise? — It has kept the tenant longer upon his legs. " But it has more materially deteriorated the condition of those farms upon which the permission was given ? — Decidedly so. " Either you think that the land will go out of cultivation and produce a diminished sup- ply, or you think that the Legislature will in- 17 terfere in some way so as to produce a rise in price? — Exactly. " And you think that is the view of those persons that buy those farms at present ? — I do believe it," Mr. Robert Hope, a Scotch fanner, gives the following evidence ; — " Have you ever thought anything about the present Corn-laws, whether they are bene- ficial to the farmer or not ? — Yes, they have been often discussed, but it is a very general feeling among those that pay corn-rents, that they have not been hitherto beneficial, but the very reverse of being beneficial. " What is your reason for that opinion ? — It induced men to offer more than has been well realized by the price of corn, because it was generally expected from the Corn-laws, that prices would be kept up to something like what they promised ; that the import of fo- reign corn would be restricted, and by that means, keep up the price of the home growth to 70s. or so. " How has the Corn-law disappointed your expectation? — Because it led those that took farms at money rents, to give a much higher rent than they would have done. "Then is it the opinion of you and those other gentlemen that have considered the sub- ject in the way you mention, that the present Corn-law ought to continue, or do you think, that any change would be beneficial to the farmer ? — From what we experienced in the year 1831, I am disposed to think, that a change might be more beneficial to the farmer, by reducing the scale at which foreign corn is imported, " You have stated, that the existing Corn- law you consider is prejudicial to the farmer; is your opinion founded upon the circumstance of there having been a miscalculation as to the effects to be produced by the Corn-laws, or upon the working of the Corn-laws them- selves? — I think by the present working of the Corn-laws, that it may run prices too high for the interest of the farmers in years of C 18 scarcity, before any foreign corn can be ad- mitted into the country, prices may be run up so high as to be prejudicial to the interest of the farmer, because, in such a year as we had in 1831, we could not grow so much wheat as we had to pay in rent. " If the result of this Corn-law should be to produce great fluctuations in price, you would think that effect would apply to all farmers ? — I think it has been prejudicial to those that even pay a money rent, because I am sure, that if it had not been for the Corn-laws, they would not have given so high a money-rent." Mr. James Tison, aa English farnier, gives this evidence : — " What causes have there been to depress the state of the farmers of stiff land ? — High rents ; it is my opinion, founded on the testi- mony of farmers themselves, that many of them are farming under war-rents, while they are selling their corn at peace prices. "Mr. Loch: The consequence of the rents being kept up too high has been that the land has been overcropped ? — Yes ; when I have conversed with farmers, this appears to be the conclusion they have come to, that they have paid their landlords what they ought to have paid to the labourers. If they had paid it to labourers they would have had value for the money ; whereas they paid it to the landlord, and, of course, received nothing back, and they had so much less to lay out upon their farms. " On the light soils, have the tenants been met by the landlords with a reduction of rent? — They have not needed so much reduction as they have upon the heavier soils. " It appears from your evidence, therefore, that it is a question very much between land- lord and tenant, as to the present condition of the farming interest ; that is to say, that the landlord has more in his power than can be done by the Legislature ? — Decidedly ; I do not see what the Legislature can do, except with respect to the Poor-law, to benefit the agriculturist effectually. 19 *' Mr. Wodehouse t Looking at Mr. Coke's estate, in Norfolk, could any number of his tenantry afford to give him any rent whatever, with wheat at 5s. abusiieli' — Yes, I think with a good crop they could. "Then you think that the want of intelli- gence and the want of skill has gone a great way towards producing the depressed state of the farmers? — According to my view of it, such is the state of society in this country, that for a person to do well in any branch, whether in agriculture, manufacture, or in commerce, there must be a combination of intelligence, practical skill, capital, and in- dustry; and if any of those be wanting, whe- ther it is in agriculture, or in mercantile affairs, a person is almost sure now to go wrong ; and when I have traced a great number of cases of individual distress among farmers to that cause, one of those has been wanting. ** What do you conceive to be the eftect of the present Corn-laws upon the consumer ? — I think they have a very unfavourable effect ; they operate as a very great hinderance to the extension of trade, to the manufacturing and commercial interests, because, under the pre- sent system of Corn-laws, we can receive no- thing in return from those countries which would take our manufactured goods, if they could send us their corn in return ; for in- stance Prussia; our trade would be immense with Prussia if we could take their corn in re- turn. " What do you think is the average price which may be fairly calculated upon by the farmer under the existing Corn-law ? — Under 50s. a quarter for wheat." Mr. Thomas Bennett is asked : — " Do you think, with reduction of rent, and the reduction of prices, the farmer can culti- vate his land at a profit ? — Looking to the seven years back, and having taken those farms under very low prices, I have not a question that some may do it profitably, and I have no doubt some will. " Sir James Graham : At what price do you c 2 20 estimate wheat for the next seven years ? — If I was going to take a farm myself, I should not expect, nor would I calculate for the next seven years, to have wheat above 5s. to 6s. a bushel. " Will the Duke of Bedford's tenants, who have retaken those farms, be able to pay the rent for which they have just agreed, with wheat at 5s. a bushel ? — I think they will. I think the majority do not expect to see it at much more." Mr. Andrew Howden, a Scotch farmer, gives this evidence : — "■ If you had been sold off in 1820, do you think you would have been better off than you are now ? — I do not know that mine is a fair case to be taken as a general case, because I started very poor in life, and I have had a hard struggle, and other circumstances that contributed to assist me. I am the only re- maining farmer in the parish where I was brought up ; except myself, there is not a far- mer, nor the son of a farmer remaining with- in the parish but myself. " What is the reason of their having all gone away ? — The money rents that where exacted of them. They all conceived that they were to have 80s, a quarter, and their calculations were made upon that. It soon appeared that that could not be realized, and they were not converted, and ruin has been the consequence. "Then there has been a great change of tenancy in your neighbourhood ? — There has been. "And that has been caused by the fall of prices? — Yes, and the want of accommodation on the part of the proprietors. " In your opinion did the Corn-law that was made in 1815, deceive both the landlord and the tenant ? — It did. I believe that the calculation upon which they took at that time was almost universally 4^ a quarter. " The Corn-law having promised a price of 80s., failed to perform it? — Yes." 31 Mr. William Bell, a Scotch farmer, is asked : — "What is your reason for supposing a fixed duty would be preferable? — By the present Corn-law, when the price approaches near the rate at which the foreign corn can be brought into the market with a profit, the prices may possibly be run up to that rate by artificial means. Thus a great quantity of corn would be improperly liberated and thrown upon the market, and this might probably depress the market for the whole season. Now, at a fixed duty, that could not take place." Mr. George Robertsoa, another English farmer, gives this evidence : — "Supposing that mutton had borne the same proportionate price when wheat fell to 40s., do you think the Scotch farmer would then have been enabled to make a good liv- ing? — The Scotch farmer would have tried something else than wheat; he would have extended his grass cultivation, and that would have tended to reduce the price of meat still more, no doubt. "And if the price of barley had been also reduced ^ — Those are all regulated by the de- mand of the manufacturing and commercial classes. "Do you know anything of the sale of the manufacturing and commercial classes? — My belief is, that they were never more prosper- ous. " How long has that been the case ? — It has been gradually coming on for years. "In the face of that increasing prosperity, has there not been a decline in the price of wheat? — That may be accounted for by the great additional average crops for a series of years. " Are you able to perceive a great increase in the demand of the operative classes?— Very great in flour and meat, and I have no doubt, the increased price of barley is caused by a demand for malting in England. " Supposing the supply and demand for 22 labour to remain the same, will not eventually the price of labour fall in proportion to the fall in the price of food ? — At present the de- mand for labour for the manufacturing inter- est is so great, that we can scarcely get hands for necessary operations of agriculture. "You have been asked, with reference to the price of wheat governing the price of meat, can you anticipate a very great falling off in the price of meat, when you consider that the population of this country is increas- ing so rapidly, and that the manufacturing employment of that population is so great as it is at present? — No. I think the price of agricultural produce must keep up ; that is to say if the manufacturing classes prosper and live as they are doing." I shall not, however, trouble the House with any further extracts. It is impos- sible to read that evidence without being convinced that the farmers are induced by this law to promise rents for their land, which it does not enable them to pay, and that they are tempted by the price of which the law professes to assure them, to devote much of their capital to the growth of wheat, which, as it is the most expensive plant they can grow, if they are disap- pointed in the price they expect, the loss they experience is proportionally severe. And I think. Sir, I may venture to state this with confidence to this House, since I find in the admirable address you published to your constituents, that this was the con- clusion to which you arrived, after devoting more attenticm and time to that committee, and to the subsequent consideration of the evidence than perhaps any other Member. And I find, that your conviction is, that the law is actually prejudicial to the farmer, and in the manner in which I have stated it to be so, and you. Sir, seem to agree in the conclusion to be drawn from much of 23 the evidence given by agriculturists them- selves, namely, that they must not depend for fortune upon the adventitious aid of such legislation as the Corn-law, but upon what all other capitalist must rely upon, namely, the skill, experience, and intelli- gence, which they bring to their pursuit- But now I wish the House to mark the consequence of the farmer being tempted to direct his attention chiefly, or to apply his capital so largely to the cultivation of wheat, and by neglecting the culture of other products' and by the overproduction of wheat, lowering its price below the sum that could be remunerating : namely, that he becomes suddenly alarmed and disap- pointed at his loss, and withdraws much of his capital from such employment, and thus narrows the breadth which he sows with wheat, and then we see how another pur- pose which the law is supposed to have, is fulfilled— namely, to supply the community with food at a reasonable rate. Why, the first consequence of growing less wheat has been of course to raise the price, which occurring at the time of a bad harvest, the public have been suffering for the last eighteen months, and are now suffering, from an unusual deficiency, and have been paying a great additional price for their food; neither have they any prospect of improvement. There is every probability that prices will keep up, and that groat sacrifices will yet have to be made by the public for food. But, supposing that all the assertions about the present season and all the usual predictions respecting the coming harvest were true, and that the price was greatly to fall in conse- quence of the rotation of the crops being disturbed by a greater breadth of wheat sown this year than was ever known be- 24 fore. Why, how will that benefit the farmer? We shall have the same story of distress over again, and we shall see that class as badly ofiF as they were in 1 836. And this is, indeed, the regular operation of the Corn-law, namely, either to ruin the farmer or greatly prejudice the public. Yet this is the law which is sought to be identified with all the cherished institutions of the State, and if any one assails it, he is charged with designs against the constitution itself. But who is benefitted by this law, if the farmer is thus injured and deceived.'' it is usual to say in these discussions, that by making prices high, particular soUs are kept in cultivation, and the labourers are thus secured employment, that wages rise with the price of food, and that, in fact, the la- bourer is thus made better off by high prices because his wages are higher. This was de- liberately said last year ; will that be re- peated ? I trust not — I dont think it cre- ditable to have urged it at all — it certainly is not true. It is almost cruel to the labourer to say it, seeing that he can have no doubt of the privations he is obliged to endure from a high price of food. There is not a pre- tence for asserting, that when provisions are high the agricultural labourer is well off. The contrary has always been the case when- ever such periods have occurred. In 1797, a year of great scarcity and high price, so far from its leading to higher wages, it was the time when the system of pauperising independent labourers commenced, and wages were made up from the rates for the very purpose of escaping from what is said to be jthe result of high prices, namely, raising wages in proportion to the price of food. Again, in 1810, 1818, 1830, and at the present time, there have been great complaints of their sufferings, and during 25 each of those years the prices have been high. But it is a fact not less striking, in contradiction of what is assumed, that whenever provisions have been low, the labourers have been well off, that there has been a great demand for their labour, and that their wages have given them a greater command over the necessaries of life. Not certainly astonishing to any person who reflects for a moment on the subject, be- cause it is clear that, as every body is more or less an employer of labour, and that he is so according to his means, that in pro- portion as his means are greater or less, so will be his demand for labour, and so conse- quently will be the wages of the labourer, as it is the proportion which their number bears to the demand for them, which must determine their condition — but if there can be any doubt as to the influence of high prices or the condition of the people, it will be well to view what really is the case at this moment, and I own, as far as my own enquiries have gone, I can learn nothing but that either the wages though raised, have not risen in proportion to the price of food, or that, not having risen at all, the labourers have in many cases en- dured the greatest privations. And here I will just read to the House a report of some cases occurring a short time since, which have appeared in a provincial paper, into the truth of which 1 have enquired and to which I merely refer to show how incau- tiously it is asserted here that the agricul- tural labourers are not affected by the price of food : — " In the southern part of this county 6s. a- week is commonly given to agricultural la- bourers. Within thejlast fortnight at the petty sessions held at Salisbury, a farmer, living at Durnford, was summoned by a labourer named 26 Blake, for refusing to pay him 6s. 6d, for a day's work. The complaint stated that he worked on "the Stem," sometimes for one master, sometimes for another, at 6s. 6d. a- week, the rate agreed to by the farmers at a vestry meeting. His employer had refused to pay him more than 6s., which Blake would not ac- cept, as it was not sufficient to maintain him- self and wife. The master, in his defence, told the magistrates that the farmers of Durnford had " stemmed " the surplus labourers of that parish at 6s. per week, which ivas as much as they could afford to pay. The Bench expressed their surprise — as well they might — at the practice pursued by the farmers at Durnford towards the labourers, and ordered the defendant to pay Blake the full amount of wages agreed on 6s. 6d., and to remunerate him for his loss of time in seeking redress. This week we will take a different district, and name Rushall, a parish standing comparatively in favourable cir- cumstances, where the poor have advantages which in many other places they do not enjoy. This parish is divided into three large farms, the land is chiefly arable, and of excellent qua- lity, producing on an average, certainly not less than eight sacks of wheat, and ten sacks of barley per acre. On this fertile spot the highest wages of able-bodied married labourers with families are only 9s. per week (we except harvest work, for which, of course, more is paid) ; those without children, and single men, although equally able, aye, and willing too, to do a good day's work, are put off with 3s., 6s,, and 7s. a-week. We do not understand why this is; it appears to be an act of injus- tice, and we should be glad to know upon what principle the distinction is made: — If an able man's service be worth 9s. a-week, then is the single man deprived of* liis due by being paid only 5s. ; but if an able man's services be worth only 5s. or 6s. a-week, then must the difference between that and 9s. be considered as parish allowance for the chil- dren ; it is high time this were properly under- stood, for if the latter be the case, the real rate of wages is much lower than it is represented 27 to be. Of course, with such wages, destitution and distress abound. Many families are un- able to obtain more than one meal a day, and in many instances that one meal consists of potatoes and salt, without meat, and with only a small quantity of the coarsest bread. Very few even of those who are the best off get wheaten bread, but are obliged to have re- course to a mixture of [barley and wheat, the latter being of a very inferior description — tail wheat. Meat is hardly ever eaten by any of the labourers, they never buy any." I think I have a right to refer to such cases when I read addresses to the peasirn- try, such as have been made by a noble Duke (Buckingham), who takes a lead in maintain - ing the Corn-laws and asks them to believe that while they maintain those laws they will ever be prosperous. Why, Sir, if it was for no other reason but the one that the Corn -laws tend to make land dear, it is prejudicial to the labouring class, who are always better off' when land is accessible to them, and nothing tends more to their contentment and comfort than the pos- session of land. Another circumstance I might mention which tends, in my judg- ment, to shew that the people are badly off" and discontented now in the agricultural districts, namely, that there have been a "reater number of the agricultural labourers who have sought to avail themselves of the provision for emigration this year than ever they did before. Why should this be the case, if the people were well paid and well employed ? but the fact is, that there is less means for employing labour this year because the price of food is so high, and the poor are driven from the farm- house to the poor-house, and from thence to the State, to implore of it to send them out of the country. And, really, if we will not allow the food to come to them, it is 28 only merciful to send them were the food is produced ; but in God's name, why are they to be driven from their homes, when, if provisions were low as they were in 1836, they would get plenty of employ- ment, as the admission of all the farmers themselves they did then. Who is it, then, after all, whose interests are benefitted by these laws ? I say , in the first place, none can be permanently so at the expense of the rest of the community, but imme- diately and for the while, there is no doubt whatever that the owner of the land has an advantage in them — and it is an advan- tage in this way, that it enables a certain class of inferior soils to be cultivated with wheat, and which doubtless could not bear the expense if the produce of better foreign soils was brought into competition with it ; and these soils being thus articifically enhanced in value, tend to raise the value and consequently the rent of all other land; and the owners of land, therefore, without reference to the effect of the law upon other classes of the community, have this inte- rest in the law; and it is well that the truth should be avowed and known, and that it be allowed that they have a tem- porary advantage in the Corn-law, and though the farmers and the labourers can- not benefit by rent being thus artificially raised, it is clear the landowners do, and it is lo them alone to whom we must deli- berately turn for redress, and appeal to them on the score of injury and injustice done to the community at large, and ultimately of injury to themselves, by impairing the fortunes of those on whom they must depend, by means of their cus- tom for the permament value of their estates. It is reasonable, therefore, to direct our whole attention to that class, for cer- 99 tain am I, that, notwithstaniling the delu- sion of some of the farmers on this suhject, that if some of the more distinguished of the landowners in both Houses of Parliament, were to rise in their places and express an opinion that the law ought to be changed, that all alarm among their tenants would at once he dissipated and allayed. I am not, however, inclined to join in any whole- sale denunciation of the landowners of this country ; it would be unjust to do so ; be- cause I know that there are among that class men of great intelligence, high minded men, men of generous feeling, some who are ready and anxious to change this law, knowing it is prejudicial to the country at large, and some who seeing their own advantage in it, yet will not adhere to it at the expense of their country ; it is right, therefore, to discriminate among them, but certainly it is fair to fix upon those among the land- lords, who obstruct and oppose all change of the law, all the consequence, and all re- sponsibility that results from such a course ; and I say this the more confidently, because it is not in their power to shew, that the law rests upon any ground of justice or of public good. The landlords in any other country but this might allege that they were exclusively taxed, that they bore more of the burdens of the state than any other class, and were entitled to have a law that should give an artificial value to their pro- duce. I say in this country they cannot allege this. Will they go into an inquiry ? Is there any particular burden they bear from which other classes are exempt ? Will they say that they are not exempt from burdens that others bear ? They are not entitled to this protection on the ground of advantage to the community. It cannot be shown there is one burden that they bear 30 that other classes do not equally endure. What, therefore, is the gi'ound for their ex- clusive protection ? What is the ground that they themselves take ? They say, if you allow the produce of foreign coun- tries to come into competition with our own, you will throw out of employ many of the labourers on our own land. What is the principle of that, supposing it to be true? Are the interests of the country to be sacrificed that certain lands shall not forego a particular cultivation ? We wish, for the benefit of the community, to resort to soils more productive, whence we shall get food cheaper — and the landowner forbids us on the ground of protection. What might the mechanic not say.'' What says the hand-loom weaver.'' They might say, do not introduce a machine that shall make labour cheaper. They do say tax machinery. The principle is the same. There seems to be no difference in the policy. What is the truth then ? The proprietors not being exclusively taxed, but, on the contrary, being rather exempted from taxation, have no ground in justice for claiming protection, whatever may be their power for enforcing it. Before I quit what may be called the agricultural part of the question, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what may in the course of this discussion be adduced in support of this law, namely, that Ireland is an agricul- tural country, and that it is an advantage to Ireland that the present law should be continued. I should be sorry to let any- thing fall from me that could possibly give offence to that country. We have done enough to offend that country already : but I must say, that of all the groundless and unreasonable pretences for supporting this law, the case of Ireland seems to me to 31 stand beyond all others. Ireland, that has of late years been sending us less and less wheat ; Ireland, where the mass of the peo- ple are too poor to consume wheat, where the husbandry is the worst in the kingdom, where the landlords have a larger share of the produce for rent, and spend it more out of their own country than any other land- lords in Europe ; Ireland, moreover, where agriculture would thrive more by not cul- tivating wheat, and where no country would benefit more from the prosperity of manu- facture here, or its introduction there — for Ireland has always felt and instantly so, the benefit of the prosperity of manufac- tures in England; and what condition would she now be in, if English manufactures were to decline with her new liability to main- tain her poor. That is a question for Irish landlords to consider. But before the com- mittee on agriculture to which 1 have re- ferred, there is positive evidence that where Irish agriculturists have prospered, it has been referable to their abandoning the cul- ture of wheat and applying the soil to other purposes. How, then, are the real interests of Ireland consulted by a law which by the price it promises offers peculiar temptation to the cultivation of wheat ? If I thought the present Corn-law of great advantage to Ireland it would have great weight with me, but what is to be gathered on this head from the avowed opinions of men who have studied and sought to promote the interests of that country, and I allude more particularly to the opinions of Mr. Sharman Crawford and the Member for Dublin, Gentlemen differing on many mat- ters, but agreeing in condemning the Corn-law, as tending to make land dear and as repressing manufacturing enter- prise in their country. I cannot think. 32 under all these circumstances, that Ire- land offers us any ground for uphold- ing the Corn-law. And now, Sir, I think I [have said enough with regard to the wisdom of this law, as it respects agri- culture, and how far that interest can be said to have thriven under the influence of monopoly. I must now turn to the great and general question involving the princi- ple which should be the test of every law, namely, its effects upon the community at large ; for I have hitherto examined its effect on the partial interest alone for which it was professed to be passed, and it is one thing which the public will expect to learn from this discussion, namely, how far they are effected by paying more or less for food in this country, and this, I think, can be shewn. It is indeed among the advan- tages of the agitation of a great question of this kind, that it brings a great many in- telligent minds to its consideration, which tends to illicit truth where doubt prevails. And here I am glad to be able to point to a very intelligent work recently published, entitled " Influences on the Corn-laws," by Mr. James Wilson, for this author ap- pears to me to have made some very faith- ful and accurate calculations, as to these effects of the Corn- laws. He takes as the basis of his calculation, the amount in quantity, and the rate at which the people have been annually paying for food for the last seven years. He adopts the general estimate as to the quantity annually con- sumed, which is sixteen millions of quar- ters, and the average price of the last seven years, which has been about 525. a-quarter. From this it will be found that the annual cost of wheat to the community, is 41,600,000/. It follows, therefore, that whatever is paid more or less than this 33 sum, is gained or lost to the community, «nd it can, therefore, be shewn what tins has been of late years, and what is the amount now lost to the community. Mr. Wilson in his work, presents in one table what has been the sum paid at home and abroad for wheat during the years 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839. For in- stance: in 1834, the total cost of wheat was 36,933,333/., while the total cost of foreign wheat was 101,750/., in 1835, the total cost of wheat was 31,400,000/., and of the latter 34,654/.; in 1836, of the for- mer 38,800,000/., while of the latter 51,177/.; in 1837, 44,666,000/., and of the latter 499,430/.; in 1838, 51,666,000/., and of the latter 4,594,014/. ; in 1839, 56,533,000/., and the latter 7,515,800/. It thus appears, that during the last three years, we have as a nation spent more in wheat grown at home, by 45,793,000/. than in the preceding years, and paid more by 12,420,000/. during the latter years for foreign wheat, than during the three preceding years. The illustration, however, will be still more simple, if we compare the two last years, namely, 1838 and 1839. In the beginning of the year 1838, we find the price of wheat is at an average of 52*. a quarter. In the autumn of the same year it suddenly rose to 75.y. being more than 20s. a quarter higher — therefore, taking the consumption at 16,000,000/. the country was suddenly called upon in September 1838, to pay 300,000/. a- week more for food than was paid in the six preceding months, and 450,000/. a-week more than it paid in 1835, and this increased sum was paid during the whole year following. This then is a sum suddenly abstracted from the capital and income which, under existing arrangements, was finding useful and con- D 34 venient employment elsewhere, and must be considered as thus lost to those depart- ments of industry to which it was giving em- ployment. It seems, moreover, that what invariably attends a high price of food in this country is, importation from abroad, the amount of which, in late years, has been stated ; but with our present relations with the corn growing counties, to pay for grain we are compelled to export bullion : we have, therefore, on these occasions, a certain amount of the currency of the coun- try invariably abstracted to make this pay- ment. We have thus an additional ab- straction from the means usually devoted to the employment at home — a very im- portant consideration in a commercial point of view, since the absence of so much bul- lion is of necessity followed by a contraction of the paper currency. The public, therefore, have to view the law connected with this twofold evil, high price and contracted currency — thus doubly checking the opera- tions of capital and labour. The same author, to prove the connection between the price of food and the currency in this coun- try, has collected in a tabular form the annual amount paid for wheat, the amount of bullion, and the amount of deposits in the Bank of England, and the amount paid for foreign wheat — and this for a period of above twenty years ; and there appears from this table a close correspondence be- tween the different amounts of bullion and deposits in the Bank, and the different amounts paid for wheat at home and abroad — the former declining as the latter en- creased, and with that regularity as to render it impossible not to conclude that a necessary connection exists between them. From 1817 until the present time, as grain has been imported from abroad,, aad prices 35 have been high, the deposits and the huUion have declined. The diminution of the deposits would result from the increased payments required for food, which lessens the amount of surplus capital in the coun- try ; and the amount of it in the Bank of England would indicate pretty much what surplus was in the country generally. In support of which 1 quote the opinion of a mercantile man who says, " When money is everywhere abundant and prosperity general, the resource of the Bank of England must be very great ; at such times the surplus of every man throughout the country finds its way to his banker ; a portion of the surplus of the bankers throughout the country finds its way to their agents in London for employment ; and the surplus of these agents, as well as all the London bankers, finds its way to the coffers of the Bank of England, as the most accredited place of safety ; and thus constitutes an index, not of the wealth and capital of the Bank of England, but of the extent of surplus capital possessed at any given moment by the whole country." It seems to be reasonable to expect, that if great and sudden demands for the national means were made, that it would manifest itself in this way, and the facts to which I have referred, seem to establish that it does so. Now we observe, that from the end of 1838 till October 1839, there appears to be a diminution, from month to month, of bullion and deposits, during the whole of which time we were importing food from abroad ; and we know farther how bitterly the commercial classes have complained during that time of the contraction of the currency. The great importance to the public of this circumstance is, that they may know the truth respecting the sources of those fluctuations in the value and amount D 2 36 of the currency, which occasions such serious and alarming embarrassment in this coun- try, and though I do not stand here as the apologist of the Bank of England, against whom, if only judged according to the rules it has laid down for itself, there is abundant ground of complaint, yet it is well to know, that what is imputed en- tirely to the mismanagement of the Bank of England, must in great measure be referred to the operation of the Corn laws. And now. Sir, it becomes us to consider, after having proved that there has been a con- traction of the currency, an increase in the price of food, and a large sacrifice of the national means to meet it — what has been the effect of these circumstances upon the commercial interest of the country. I will first allude to the cotton trade. The facts I am now about to state, I believe, will prove that, whereas there had been a greater export of manufactured goods, the consump- tion of manufactures at home had been less. I quote these facts to show that the whole trade of the country was worse in the years in which the price of provisions was high. I take the years 1838 and 1839. The quantity of cotton exported in 1838, was 269,000,000lbs. ; in 1839, it was 262,000,0001bs. ; being a deficiency of 7,000,000lbs. In 1838, the home consump- tion of cotton was 155,000,0001bs. ; in 1839, it was 122,000,0001bs. ; being a deficiency of 33,00(),000lbs. Of wool, the home consumption, in 1838, was 56,000,000lbs.i in 1839, it was 53,000,000 lbs., being a deficiency of 3,000,0001bs. But the export of woollen goods had in- creased. In 1838, the quantity ex- ported was 6,000,000lbs. ; in 1839, it was 6,600,0001bs. Of flax, the home con- sumption, in 1838, was l,600,000lbs. ; in 37 1839, it was l,200,000lbs., and so on with respect to many other articles which he would not then stay to enumerate. It ap- peared also that the articles which contribut- ed to these staple manufactures of the coun- try, had also greatly fallen off in consump- tion. From the returns I have quoted, the House will perceive, that whilst the goods entered for home consumption had mate- rially diminished in amount, the quantity of manufactured goods exported had in- creased. Doubtless some persons in this House will think, that this proved that the country was prosperous. I advise such persons, however, first to consult their manufacturing friends, or indeed any com- petent authority connected with our foreign trade, whether the increase of exports was a sure sign of prosperity, and whether it was not compatible with the manner in which business was conducted in this coun- try, that the exports should increase when the consumption at home declined, the manufacturers being driven by necessity to procure somewhere a sale for goods cast back, as it were, on their own hands, and whether it was not usual for them then to consign these goods, on their own account, to houses abroad to be disposed of, and whe- ther this has not, from distress, been done during the last year, to a very great extent. Indeed there was evidence of it in the com- plaints which had come from different countries of the sales of our manufactures which we were forcing on their markets. I find in a letter addressed to one of our most influential journals, from its corre- spondent abroad, speaking of the extra- ordinary quantity of British goods brought into foreign markets, says, I would wish to give a hint to those British manufacturers who continue to send over goods to be sold 38 at forced sales, at any price ; if that prac- tice be continued the loss will be enormous. Mr. Biddle, who was well known in Ame- rica, in a letter he addressed to this country last year, spoke of the injurious extent to which British merchandise was forced into the American markets. I might indeed quote much more evidence to shew that goods are frequently exported for want of a market at home for which they have been produced, and which, for some reason has failed, and which, in this case, I chiefly ascribe to the heavy payments that have been required for food. Another proof I might give of the depression at home would be the dimi- nished consumption of certain articles on which revenue is collected, as that, at least, is shown by the amount collected on the difi'erent quarters, ending in January 1839 and 1840. I will take four articles of ordi- nary consumption. £. £. Hops in 1833 298,343 in the year ending 1840 280,079 Malt 5,'m,798 4,845,948 Soap 1,047,545 7,400,000 Spirits 5,451,792 5,442,47? But, Sir, I will fortify my opinion, that there has been a diminished power of con- sumption at i'lome, owing to the influences that I have traced to the Corn laws, by the authority of a gentleman, whose name I am sure will be received by the House with great respect, I mean Mr. Jones Lloyd, and who in a pamphlet recently published, in which he inquires into the cause of the commercial distress for the last year in this country ; he places first in order " The succession of two bad harvests in a country afflicted with laws which render such an occurrence peculiarly oppressive to the community, and by a peculiar felicity in mis- chief, contrive to make monetary derange- ment, and consequently commercial pressure, 39 tlie inevitable accompaniment of the misfor- tune of tlie seasons. The poison of impolicy is thus thrown into the fiendish cauldron of injustice, " * For a charm of powerful trouble Like a hell-broth to boil and bubble.'" Now, in referring to this Gentleman, I am not naming a person likely to express himself rashly or incautiously, or one who had no stake in the country, as it is called, but I am referring to one who was probably the possessor of more property than any of those who would take part in the discussion this evening — property of every description, not only in money but in land, and whose judgment was held in high esteem wher- ever he was known. And now. Sir, we will just consider what are the consequences of this monetary derangement and commer- cial pressure of which Mr. Lloyd speaks ; for there ought to be something to corre- spond in the actual condition of some of our manufacturing towns, if these things were true, and I think I have here a re- port from one of those districts which will enlighten the House upon that subject. I will read the result of an inquiry made at Bolton a few weeks since : — " In the cotton mills alone, about 95,000/. less have been paid during the last twelve months. Many of the mills have been en- tirely stopped for all or part of the lime, and with only two exceptions, all have worked short time for a considerable portion of the past year. I have made a very careful calcu- lation from extensive personal inquiry, and assert most confidently, that, altogether, there must have been at least 130,000/. less paid in wages in the Bolton Union. Now, add this 130,000/. less in wages to the 195,000/. more for food, and there is a total loss to Bolton of 325,000/. ! What are the consequences? There 46 are now in Bolton 1,125 houses untenanted, of which about fifty are shops, some of them in the principal streets. Here is a loss to the owners of 10,000^. to 12,000/. a-year. The shopkeepers are almost ruined by diminished returns and bad debts. There were, a short time ago, three sales of the effects of shop- keepers in one day. Distraints for cottage rents occur daily. The arrears of cottage rents, and the debts to shopkeepers, are in- calculable, but they must amount to many thousand pounds. The pawnbrokers' shops are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and even bedding of the destitute poor. Fever is also prevalent. Mr. R. S. Kay, one of the medical officers of the union, and a young practitioner of great promise, lately took the infection of malignant typhus fever, and last week fell a victim to his harassing duties. He had latterly worked almost day and night. A short time ago 590 persons were relieved by the poor-law guardians in one day, in amounts varying from six to eighteen pence per head per week. In many cases two or three families are crowded into one house. In one case, seventeen persons were found in a dwelling about five yards square. In another, eight persons, two pair of looms, and two beds, in a cellar six feet under ground, and measuring four yards by five. There are scores of families with little or no bedding, having literally eaten it, t. e. pawned or sold it for food ! The out-door relief to the poor is three times greater in amount than on the average of the three years ending 1838. South of Bol- ton, four miles, a large spinning establishment, giving employment to 800, and subsistence to 1,300 persons, has been entirely stopped for nine months. The proprietor has upwards of 100 cottages empty, or paying no rent, and, although possessed of immense capital, finds himself unable to continue working his mills to advantage. Entering Bolton from Man- chester, another mill, requiring 180 hands, has been entirely standing for eighteen months. In the centre of the town, another, 250 hands, stopped several weeks. North of Bolton, one 41 mile, a spinnino-, manufacturing, and bleach- ing establislim'ent, on which 1,200 persons were dependent for subsistence, has been en- tirely standing for four months. Several ma- chine makers and engineers are now employ- ing one or two hundred hands less than usual, at wages varying from 15s. to 40s. a- week. A public subscription, amounting to nearly two thousand pounds, has just been raised to mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings of the destitute poor; in fact, to deal out a scanty pittance, just sufficient to keep them from actual starvation, to a body of workmen who possess, perhaps, greater skill and industry than any population of similar numbers on the face of the globe, but who are forbid, by the inhuman policy of our landowners, to exchange the produce of their labour for food in the open market of the world !" And that really was the cause of their distress; and this melancholy state of things is unfortunately by no means con- fined to the cotton districts, as I know well myself from information which I have pro- cured from the place which I represent. And is it not strictly in point, 1 would ask, to bring these matters before the House ? I am not one who would advise the Legislature to interfere simply because there was distress; but when great evil and great distress can be traced to the law, then I think it is the duty, as it is in the power of the Legislature to interfere. I believe, in this case, that it is in the power of this House to give instant relief — I be- lieve it is possible to give permanent relief. The people are now suffering from the high price of provisions, and they are suffering for want of commerce with those countries where the food is grown cheap. The ware- houses here are full of foreign grain, and the countries where it is grown are ready to negociate with us for a regular inter- 42 change of products. But the people are starving, and we forbid them to touch the cheap and abundant food within their reach ; the people want employment, and we refuse to allow them to work for corn-grow- ing customers and euiployex's 5 our manufac- tures are stopped, because payments from abroad are not made for goods already sup- plied from the scarcity of money ; they offer us flour in payment for our manufactures,and our manufacturers are willing to take it, and would at once be willing to execute fresh orders upon receiving it, but the law for- bids the people to touch it without payment of the duty, and stops the payment that would thus be readily made by the mer- chants in America to the manufacturers of this country. This is no opinion, it is the fact — America owes a large debt to our merchants in this country; owing to their own monetary embarrassments they have no means of paying their debts, but large quantities of flour have been sent to this country on American account ; could this be admitted, not only would those debts be paid, and thus relief be given to our manu- factures but they would be ready to exe- cute fresh orders, and thus give employ- ment to our people who are starving for want of it. We are moreover now left without a pretence for saying, that the states from which we might export our corn, have not always been, and are now, ready to admit our manufactures on terms of reciprocity. I do not understand the denial of it, if that proceeds from any authority. Is it intended to imply that the late President of the Board of Trade stated what was false, when he said he had, besides the official communications which he read to the House, perused many other letters from foreign ministers all to the effect of shew- 43 ing the willingness on the part of those foreign countries to reduce there tariffs on our applying the same principle to their product ; and what does the able report of Dr. Bovvring but distinctly confirm the impression which these official documents, read by Mr. Thomson, had made, and proves, even at this hour, the readiness of those countries to trade with us .'' I believe what is contained in Dr. Bowring's report, for it corresponds exactly with the inform- ation I procured myself when in those countries, and I have heard no reason since to question its correctness. The effects already of our system in compelling those States to employ their population in manufacture, may be shewn by the fol- lowing official statement, taken from the first and last year of the tables of the Board of Trade relating to our trade with the corn-growing countries: — MANUFACTURED GOODS EXPORTED TO RUSSIA, GERMANY, AND PRUSSIA, IN 1832 and 1838. 1832. 1858. Cotton Manufactures • • • • £1,273,355 £946,433 Hosiery 359,157 197,615 Linen Manufactures •• •• 6,429 25,111 Silk 20,888 17,629 Woollen 952,450 815,785 £2,612,279 £2,002,573 Deficiency, notwithstanding a great increase of poinilation 609,706 To enable tliese countries to employ their population in manufacturing clothing, to make up the deficiency of their imports, the following statement, from the same source, shows tlie yarns to them in the same years : — 1832. 1838. Cotton Twist and Varn -■ £2,935,775 £3,502,186 Linen Yams 65 29,871 Woollen 137,082 229,572 £3,072,922 £3,761,629 Increase of Material to work , into Cloth . • • • 688,707 But as it is needful, in order that these countries shall successfully rival England at home and in neutral markets, that they shall have our coals, iron, and steel, and more 4.4 especially our machinery and niillwork; the following state- ment, from the same source, shows the progress of our ex- ports of these materials, in the same years to these coun- tries:— 1832. 1838. Coals . . . . £27,790 £56,350 increase 100 per cent. Iron and Steel 75,295 190,222 250 ,. Machinery and Millwork • • 7,863 97,479 ,. 1,250 „ Total . . £110,948 £344,051 average 300 „ The result is a reduction in the export of manufactured goods, which would employ our labour ; an increase of yam to employ their own labour ; and an increase of machinery of 1,250 per cent., to render them perfectly independent of us in their own countries, and to rival us in neutral coun- tries. But it is not only with the German state, that it would be important for us to negociate at this moment, but it is the moment which is yet left to us, to engage in fresh treaties with the United States and Brazil — and here I must hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us exactly the truth on this mat- ter, and whether the general impression is correct that the present tariff of the United States will cease in 1842 ; and that, about the same time, our present treaty with Brazil will expire ; and that our future relations with those countries, will very much depend upon the terms, that we may be enabled to offer them. I hope, at least, that the people will be un- der no delusion on the subject, and that if we are to continue these fetters on our commerce, at least it shall be done deliber- ately and with our eyes open. The future well being of this country must now de- pend upon the extension of our commerce, there is no other mode of providing for our population, or averting the decline of our country. The foolish and impolitic fetters with which we now restrict the commerce of this country are now pressing upon the vitals of the people, and their cry for re- lief is to be heard in this motion be- fore the House. There are some who think our foreign trade has been carried too far, and that we should have been bet- ter without it, that may be true or not, but the complaint is too late, and our fo- reign trade is now essential to our exist- ence, and we cannot lessen it or destroy it without jeopardising our whole financial and commercial system. We must look to it for the maintenance of our credit, and the collection of our revenue. Most cer- tainly this is not the moment to weaken the sources of our revenue when our expendi- ture has increased and is increasing by the price we pay for our sustenance, and by the steps we are taking to subdue our colonics, I cannot, indeed, see how the deficiency in the revenue is to be supplied. The great sources of our revenue are found in the capacity of the people to consume the arti- cles that are taxed. I cannot see how it is possible to expect that any fresh tax upon the daily consumption of the people can be collected— for while the price of provisions was thus enhanced by the Corn- law, and the prospects of trade remained as they were, how could it be supposed that if a fresh tax was imposed, that some other branch of the revenue would not fall off. The only resource which in wisdom or justice 1 can think it possible to resort to would be a properly tax. In the year 1830 the country was then tending to the condition in which we now find it. The price of food was then high, and the taxa- tion was grievously felt by the productive classes ; Mr. Huskisson then in a most able speech and the last that he made in this House on the state of the nation, drew the attention of the House to the sources of 46 our revenue, and the difficulties which there would exist in collecting the same amount of revenue if trade declined, and the productive classes remained depressed, he did then point to our only alternative, in the imposition of a tax upon property. These were his words : — " The more general considerations to which I now claim the attention of the House are these. First, that no other country in Europe has so large a proportion of its taxation bear- ing directly upon the incomes of labour and productive capital. Secondly, that in no other country of the same extent — I think I might say in none of five times the extent of this kingdom — is there so large a mass of income belonging to those classes who do not directly employ it in bringing forth the produce of labour. Thirdly, that no other country has so large a proportion of its taxation mortgaged (in proportion to the amount of that mortgage are we interested in any measure which, with- out injustice to the mortgagee, would tend to lessen the absolute burden of the mortgage). Fourthly, that from no other country in the world does so large a proportion of the class not engaged in production (including many of the wealthy), spend their incomes in foreign parts. I know I may be told, that by taxing that income you run the risk of driving them to withdraw their capital altogether. My answer is. First, that ninety-nine out of every hundred of these absentees, have no such com- mand over the source of their income. Se- condly, that the danger is now of another and more alarming description — that of the pro- ductive capitals of this country being transfer- red to other countries, where they would be secure of a more profitable return. The relief of industry, is the remedy against that dan- ger." I believe that the people will now turn their attention to this mode of ob- taining relief, and certainly I doubt if 47 any new tax but that on property will he siihniittcd to. I am afraid, that 1 have now exhausted the patience of the House by detailing the mischievous re- sults of these laws, and I will proceed no farther ; but I cannot conclude with- out exhorting those who had hitherto op- posed any change, to pause well before they pronounce their decision again upon this question. I ask them whether they perceive anything in the appearance of circumstances around them that encou- rage belief that the people would adopt their views ? Do they think, that any change of opinion since the last Session has occurred in the public mind.? Do they not, on the contrary, know that great numbers have come forth and declared their opposition to the existing law who were silent before ? Were there not many classes, who had never spoken be- fore, now eager upon the subject ? I ask the attention of the House to the fact, that some of the most cautious and con- servative persons in the community — men who were supposed to preside over the monetary system of the country, and who were most averse to change, have come forth, and declared their opinion that this law is most injurious to all the great in- terests with which they are connected. Have not a greater number of persons of the working classes, pronounced their opin on upon this question than have ever done so before. I want, therefore, to know what it is that is expected to result from the rejection of this motion. The hon. Member for Rutland has declared his de- termination to oppose this motion, and I certainly admire more the bold injustice of the hon. Gentleman than the insidious proceeding of the hon. Member for Cam- 48 bridge, who has proposed an amendment but who left the real mischief of the law un- touched. I wish to ask what these Gen- tlemen expect to gain by such a course ? Do they expect that all those who have come forward and devoted their attention to this subject, who have sacrificed their pro- perty in the cause, and have pledged them- selves for the future to agitate this question until it was brought to a satisfactory con- clusion." — \_Oppositio7i cheers.~\ Yes ; he thought it was the best test of the earnest- ness of men when they devoted their money to promote an object. ^Hear, hear !~\ Did hon. Gentlemen who opposed his motion expect that by its rejection all those per- soHs of whom he had spoken would go home and admit themselves to be in error ? Did they expect those persons would say, *' We certainly did think we were right, but we have found, after discussion, that we are wrong ; that all those who have agitated the question are in error ; and that this law is a gain and a blessing to us. Let us forget our folly, and never revert to the matter .''" Was it reasonable to suppose that the great mass of the peo- ple would quite reverse their language upon this subject, and adopt that quiescent and convenient course, if this motion were rejected.'' If hon. Gentlemen did not ex- pect this, what was it that they conceived would be the consequence of that rejection } Why, the people would return to their homes in the conviction that they were right and at the same time satisfied that the House of Commons would not do them justice. And what prospect did that present.'' Would it settle the ques- tion } If there was difficulty now in making arrangements in the settlement of property, would the mere rejection of this 49 motion facilitate their views. Would it allay the anxiety of the public mind on the subject ? What was there to in- duce the people to admit that they were wrong? They did not doubt themselves, that they were cruelly injured by the law. What eminent authority was there, what .person of that kind had lately appeared to shake them in this conviction. And yet, what year passed that some fresh person whose interest or intelligence entitled him to credit, did not appear to denounce it ? On all other great questions there had been drawn forth men of ability, advocat- ing opinions in favour of, as well as in op- position to, the proposition advanced ; but with respect to this particular question, there was hardly a single man of eminence and intelligence who had undertaken to write in support of the present law. [Ironical cheers from the Opposilion~\ If any able publica- tion had appeared in favour of the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was unaware of the fact, and should certainly feel great pleasure at having the opportu- nity of perusing it [Hear^ hear !~\. But while there was comparative silence ob- served by the advocates of the existing system, men of the greatest talent and most extensive information, were coming forth daily with publications of their opin- ions against it. What, then, could hon. Gentlemen expect to result from their resist- ance to any change. I pray the House therefore, to pause before they come to a decision, that they will resist all enquiry. I have abstained from stating my own views of what consists with justice and policy ; in what should be substituted for the present law. I have satisfied myself with pointing out the evils that resulted from the present law. There was no pre- 50 text, therefore, for resisting the motion on the score of the known opinions of the mover. Supposing that the House should now re- sist all enquiry, how long will those who vote in that way abide by their decision — let them reflect how soon it may be, that they will be called upon to vote in the directly opposite way — and whether" that will reflect great credit either upon the House or themselves — for this reason then, I ask the House to pause be- fore they oppose all changes. It is no use to say, that because I propose this question, that they would not assent to it, or because I wished to see the law totally repealed, that they who had the power to resist all change, who have the power to determine the precise amount of change, would not consider the subject. The peo- ple would not be deluded by such distinc- tions and pretences as those. The motion is now made by one who has a perfect right to make it ; and those who vote against it, will be very justly considered the friends and advocates of the law. And when they decided thus to maintain the law, did they consider who were the par- ties who were arrayed against them ? It was no question simply between land- owners and manufacturers. That was the weak invention of the enemy to assert, and said for the purpose of throwing discredit on the question. No! The question was above any other that could be named, one in which the great majority of the com- munity were interested one way, and a comparatively small section of it, deemed themselves interested the other way ; and the advantage which the minority pos- sessed, was in their position in the legisla- tion where their interest greatly prevailed. But was it wise simply to rely on this 51 power ? As far as I have been able to collect the opinions of that great and in- telligent portion of the population termed the working class, they had rested their claims to the Suffrage chiefly and with great distinctness on these grounds ; that they considered that their interests and those of the community at large, were not duly represented in the House of Com- mons, that they were bound by laws enacted and maintained by those who had no fellow feeling with them — and that the general conduct of the Legislature was their strong argument for widening and altering the character of the constituency. And as far as he could collect the views of the many thousands of this class who had petitioned to repeal the Corn-laws, it was as a sort of test of the character and con- stitution of the House, which they might point to hereafter as a ground for the assertion of their claims. But do the working classes stand alone? Had not other classes attached themselves to them ? Were not the classes immediately above them acting cordially with them upon this occasion ? The working classes certainly spoke with confidence of the House not doing them justice in this matter. They consented, however, to act with the middle class, whose language to those below them generally was, " act cordially with us, petition the House respectfully, pray for the redress of your grievances, we will join you, do not yet believe that the Par- liament will reject your prayer, and refuse you justice." The people then have peti- tioned, but it is well known that every working man who had signed those peti- tions this year, had declared, that if they proved abortive, that it was the last tliey would sign for the repeal E 2 52 of the Corn-laws. The next petition they would sign would be for the re- form of the House of Commons itself. There was now upon this question of the Corn-laws an union between the middle and the working classes, and did hon. Members believe, that, under common dis- appointment, there would not be an union as firm and cordial between those classes, and upon the other the ultimate question which would then be raised. If this mo- tion is rejected, he believed that three years would not elapse before that junction would be formed for the purpose of a fur- ther reform in the constitution of that House. The middle classes experienced the mischief of these laws, and they called for their repeal. The working classes suffer from them equally, I believe in a much greater degree, but they have said, that it is useless to call upon this House to ac- complish the object, and they tell the mid- dle class, that it is for this purpose that they want the franchise, that they do not call for change for the sake of change, but that no advance will be made in that House, on these questions of national inter- est, until they can throw their weight into the political scale. And did this House for one moment suppose, that it would be able to change this opinion, thus deliber- ately formed, and strongly maintained, by the rude rejection of this measure. A few months ago he attended a meeting of the working classes at Manchester, when he witnessed the most gratifying spectacle of upwards of 5,000 working men who had just quitted their daily avocations, and who had assembled together at dinner to express their opinions upon this vital ques- tion. A more orderly, respectful, or at- tentive meeting, and one where those 53 decent observances requisite in public as- semblies were more regarded, he never witnessed. Nothing could have been more strikingly contrasted with the conduct of many other meetings which frequently oc- curred, composed of persons who were ac- customed to discredit and disparage the people, than the decorous deportment of that vast assemblage. He did not doubt that, throughout this kingdom, a simi- lar feeling and conduct would be displayed wherever the working people might assem- ble. What, then, does the House think, would be the effect of the rejection of this motion upon these very men to whom I refer, or on any others in their circum- stances, and equally endowed with quali- ties so justly entitling them to respect? Was it supposed that they would tamely submit to the injury and the affront that you would offer them by refusing an in- quiry into the working of this law ? Would they believe that they were in error, be- cause those who were interested in the law asserted that they were so ? Would they proclaim to the world that they had, on this occasion, met and made fools of themselves, by remaining silent in future ? Let, then, the majority of this House make it matter of calculation with themselves, and ask, what they will gain by persisting to main- tain the law as it is, and incurring all the odium that attaches to such a course? Whatever the opinion of the House really may be, it should look at this question practically. Supposing that the repeal of the law was an evil, was it not an inevita- ble one ? The people believed the law was an intolerable evil ; do you prove to them that it is not, in anything you say, and do they not hear, and have they not heard, from some of the most distinguished men 54 in the land, that they are right ? That the law is unjust and unwise, and that they rightly refer their sufferings to it — still I fear that these considerations are not weigh- ing with the majority of this assembly, and that this motion is to be rejected. I shall then only say, that the responsibility of all the consequences that follow from this course must be fixed upon them. What- ever might happen — whatever disturbance might follow — whatever evils that may occur, whether they be social or political, or of a physical kind, as resulting from this law, the whole blame and responsi- bility must attach to those very persons individually and collectively who give their vote this evening against this motion. The people were now enduring great physical suffering, which, on great professional authority, I may justly ascribe to the miserable food to which this law condemns them : there is discontent pervading the working classes throughout the kingdom, springing from a sense of injustice inflicted on them by this House, and their attention is now being drawn, though at first re- luctantly, yet now grown into habit, to the consideration of political subjects, and their feelings, from these circumstances, are becoming hourly heightened by the agitation of this question. The House, then, has at this moment an opportunity of allaying this excitement, and extending to them relief from the pressure which is now bearing them down. Will they throw away this moment ? Let them ! if they do, they will surely be indebted to fortune alone if they should be enabled to regain it. I will not longer obtrude upon the at- tention of the House. If I have expressed myself with warmth, I regret it. If I have done so, it proceeds only from the very sincere conviction on my part that I am right on this suhject ; and from an apprehension that the House may be guilty of the egregious error of resisting the motion, I now move that the House resolve itself, into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the act 9 Geo. 4th, regulating the importation of foreign grain. THE END. THOMAS CUR80N HANSARD, PATERNOSTER ROVT. UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to thie library from which it was borrowed. llii