The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-16 00:00:00

arguments against the Corn-laws was, that as we had noto
oßbrtE4gi:lar dealing in corn with the Continent, we could not
a supply when we were pressed by occasionald
!e'reitY• Now during the last threG or four we had little if any dealing in corn with the Contnent, but Set when the time of scarcity came was it impossible for
'es to procure a supply ?—( Cheers.) Did we want a
suPPly now ?—( Cheers.) They bad now taken for home.
consumption 1,740,000 quarters. The Corn-laws had
kiven a greLt stimulus to Ireland. la 1807 England
icaPorted from that country 463,000 quarters of wheat.
The trade in wheat was then made free. In 1838 we im-
ported 3,471,000 quarters.—( Cheers.) But the Irish
gentlemen opposite, being determined to act upon a rigid
principle cf justice, were willing to sacrifice the ad-
taniage which their country derived from the Corn-Ilw!,
for the sake of the general welfare. He honoured this
principle, but he certainly could net discover whether Ire-
could could derive any advantage from tho ports of this
country being thrown open to grain from Prussia and Po-
land--(Cheera.) They said you can establish manufacto,
vies in Ireland. How ? Would the hair o -ta. ion of foreign
corn into England give facility for establishing manufacto-
ries in Ireland, whose chief produce was corn ?—( Cheers.)
He could not understand this. The Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton had advanced two arguments. The
first %vas that the low price cf foreign corn enabled
hf°r:eign manufacturers to manufacture at a very low
Price, and that the people of this country
should be permitted to purchase their corn wherever
they could get it at the lowest price. The Noble Lord had
gsaid that the Corn-law did not fulfil the prediction of Mr.
inning in preventing fluctuations. The Hon. Member
.obLaobiny by don said, that it would derange our commerce mostH
creating a sudden demand for bullion. The
.. Member for the Tower Hamlets, said, that a total
tePeal of the Corn-laws, would open vast regions for the
use of our people—that there was no climate which might
flat produce us ma and give it in exchange for our ma-
,
.fee'ttres• lie (Sir Robert Peel) understood this
-4 an excellent argument to be addressed to the
rDelegates, but not so
convenient as addressed to the land-
vcersi because the Hon. Gentleman had stated that the
-uPPIy was unlimited, that the introduction of seam nevi-
gotion had diminished distance, that the introduction of
!elohinery bad diminished the cost of production, so that,
to fact, these Hon. Gentleman made it appear that there
twas no limit to the supply. But what said the Hon Mem-
er for Lo who on this subject, he considered cer-
w London, 1
Tel a higher authority than the Hon. Member for the
wer Hamlets. In fact, he considered his authority on
* subject es much higher than the authority of the other
Hon, IVlember as the City of London was superior to the
el, "fel" Han le's. —( A laugh.) Ile was a gentler! an exten-
t connected with commerce, versed in the history
it commercial speculation, of high character, sound judg-
o,ent, capable of fmnding a consequential argument, and of
fitlFring into reasons in support of what he had advanced.
f is gentleman says that the utmost supply we can expect
ter"l all parts of the world amounts to ore million of (per-
tlste wheat, and the price we must pay for it is 455. per
itl.arter, and the Hon. Member for Sheffield agrees with
1118 Opinion These Hon. Gentlemen say that we have no
lea:ttil °f.'nY supply of corn' from France,. Belgium, Hol-
ton, Pa'n, or Portugal, and that Odessa is at such a (lis-
c, and the price there so enormous, that we could never
-arry 01
d • a prefitable trade in corn there, and that we must
aleptiend for our whole supply upon the ports of the Baltic;
that suss the Hon. Member for London, we cannot expect
thi I ply to exceed one million of quarters annually. If
ratioele so there must haw been some monstrous exagge-
pes.,; Was it possible that the corn-laws could have im-
all t','-` a tax of 25,000,000 on the people of this country. If
gi,eoro,otii.amtoeoo:ld be hopel from a free trade in corn was
quarters at 455. a quarter, what great exag-
()Ora aeration Offthe dangers arisinc, from foreign competition to
wontillatinfacturers must there have been if this importation
petitionlgnable them to enter successfully into this corn-
of ti, and yet we were told it there was a repeal
bit e Corn-laws manufacturers would be able to enter
hi:i this competition. He took their own facts as the
cities of his argument. He took their own high autho-
-61,3' and he said, appealing to these facts as true, and
what* Propositions as credible, that he would examine
low, would be the consequence
of this repeal of the Corn-
Present' which was so much sought after. Why, under the
710 n Corn-laws there had been an importation of
Peet uOO quarters, so that all the increase they could ex-
have w:n114:1 be 250,000 quarters, for which they would
their ``) Pay 455. a quarter. Now this was according to
titiott "n showing. How this was to destroy the cornpe-
the „of their foreign rivals he could not understand. How
Otto nel.giA,
manufacturer was to be interfered with by
he tllung 250,000 quarters of wheat from the whole world
wa.C(nad not comprehend. The Belgian manufacturer
, co: sub, not
to similar Corn-laws to ourselves but of a more
sp.nlifnlicated nature. We could get no corn from France,
rent ',, or Portugal, and how were we to pe-
tition
o''7 this additional importation the compe-
,to preventt those countries. —(Hear, hear.) How were we
47,ee, the United States from manufacturing, since the
.c.. manufacturers of Europe had increased 40 per
loot' ; those of France 27 per cent. ; those of England
eent,fer cen4.
Pro "of ; and those of the United States, 167 per
rosperity• How could we hope to undermine the manufacturing
the United States ? He' had not said on a
Euteahe:
tet, considered
that he contemplated this with pleasure,.
...ern,
becausenst ered it an inevitable result, and he abjured
Treace,
andhotker nations, from the long continuanceo
kirie,ei.t e increase in their population, and the
sill': a States, from the gradual exhaustion of profit-
to
~amPloyment, had engaged in manufactures, not
of t%naider that was a syrnpton of the declining prosperity
Siete, "entry- At the time of the war with the United
Rate, a
ottid
b,manufacturer oof Birmingham had said that they
rnPorted verrun with vermin, because they had hitherto
Ras
rtot
stmlletheir mousetraps from Birmingham, and there
4 41°Usetr lent ingenuity in the United States to construct
settled torP. Really the manufacturers of this country
They thi i.eBeMble that worthy manufacturer of Birmingba..m. other cour'' that they have no other resource of preventing of corn i ntries from manufacturing but by raising. theaprme.
Gent
of n those countries. He now came to the r
laws h
ri the Noble Lord, who said that because these
and hoe not produced a steadiness in the price of
of
the
exi ti,; that he founded a sweeping condemnation
.
sthas:ei-UgthsaYBt tite 'nu'
ur,....,` °tlght t b Corn-laws,g 1. The Noble Lord had as.
and a strong presumption
oaf cha,nd,
as-
prevent flurt.u%atas an ea(nd object of the Corn-law to
cce'rtainly the Noble Lord had proved
r„at 1.1.• Cannier, to have held out that hope; the
''Ca,,rn,"nt of th; Noble Lord went to prove that Mr.
th: 7.ing Was a bad prophet, but it did not follow that
Nobrel'ire the law should be changed, and he would ask the
to , e Lord by what system of Corn-laws he could hope
e,,'"vent a fluctuation in price.. Had the Noble Lord
44 r read the work of Mr. Tooke, in which he
price to account for the fluctuations in the
Nf" ce of the various articles of consumption.
, . Tcoke attempted to show that a similarity in seasons
erevailed through the corn countries of Europe. He h-J.l
attempted to show that countries situated in nearly the
same latitude had the same vicissitude of seasons ; and in
ttPport of that proposition he bad referred to the opinions
of Mr. Law. Now, when that was established, what se-
earity, he would ask, was there that there would not be
!fluctuating price in corn ?—( Hear.) Because, if there
"ki any truth in Mr. Tooke's statement, when the harvest
14 England failed it was likely to fail in many
riklher countries. It was said that an increase of the
ation justified a repeal of the Corn-laws, and almost
imel the same breath he was told that agriculture must be
th!lr?,!ed•—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had said
tho :I(4tthe duty was repealed, or a fixed duty was imposed,
e sequence would be to increase the prosperity of the
ti.°till.ptrY, and the prices of corn.--( Hear, hear.). He (Sir
eore eel) thought that the complaint was that the price of
told the too high—( Hear, hear)—but the Noble Lord
Wool ent that if they did with corn as they had done with
the
~..Te that
would be that it would not diminish
(8 r%e.e of corn but raise it,—( Hear, hear.) Now he
shown% "'eel) thought the Noble Lord ought to have
eenr_ the House that the taking off the duty on wool had
thitt.Fe steadiness of price.—( Hear, bear.) How was it
i Tra,rdiN4oble Lord and the President of the Board of
Dijon
~,, `4 not go on to show that.—( Hear.) Had the
opened'pe wool been steadier since the ports had been
;-•-(Hear, hear.) In 1825 the duty was reduced to
Wool wellnY.--( Hear, hear.) In 1819 the dut on
trwhielisiatiahpeance a 1b.,. in 1825. it was reduced to a penny,
ice er _ a continued since. Now what had been the
4 1819 wool before and since the repeal of that duty ?
It' ti ' What' the duty was 6d., the price. of wool was
in 1 . ; 14 1820 •
i 4 822 it it was Is. O. ;in 1821 it was ls. 6d. ;
; Wes is. /Las Is- 6d. ; in 1823 it was is. 6d., and in 1824
o_, a perf '''' In 1825 the duty was removed, and there
jP there beet'
free importation. Now since that period
i:wa Wnmeen steadiness in price ? Why in 1825 South
18a282 it tc,s 9wdas I.s. , in 1826 it was ls., in 1827 it was 9d., in
4 28.. •, In 1830 it was ls. 2d., in 1831, is. 2d., in
l'estlitte4s.so that, so far from there having been any
,44 Itot oe In Price, there had been such a fluctuation as
111.1.1eotits weiufkrred before.._( Hear, hear.) Then the ar-
ti,‘lta. that if'' respect to wool, resolved themselves into
e , what had occurred with respect to that ar-
th " a r b„e. wo,tiPbP 'cable to corn, the probability was that
\Nr• that °t6 e no security for increased steadiness in price,
Nvoltill 44,4 Price would be increased.—( Hear, hear.)
fitrn,l'eriniri, ',to the farmer, the Honourable Member for
titiN's btiti\nn had stated that the present was not a
g'rlarart 4 had
question. That the farmers were
`11.• ViLleitof rnen.—( Hear, hear.)
hvi '" 11, p 1,,,
farle`n she,_`'E L--CertainlY, the Honoura_ble Memberee
tak'ners,,...,,,tethat he had had much dealing with
.11
t)lea it t;-)1. at laughter.) But he was very much mis-
A ~,, i„ „.n. Member 'had not stated that they were
sir r. VD , '"'gtence.—( Hear, hear.)
Metrib R64IR,,S—No, no,
arid or sa ER I PEEL—Did not the Honourable
lie, der
nY they were men attached to localities
r,,,,v,
itthen.
_nt be persuaded easily to remove themselves.
tilin, ~ were. men attached to localities who had not the op-
stett4thnot' t4lhe alcdulg the Most of their means as other classes had.
Ira, , e whole theation in agricultural produce materially
oikt °be do„ ' Ofpresent generation e—alear, hear.) What
ads of cultivlttivith those under lease, when bad land was thrown
Ntikeed perioS4 ? What with those who had arrived at an
ote 'Peerd goof,. rife who had no facility of undertakmg met'.
ti gh„n, au(}l
no , 'Om.. ear, hi ar.) The question then was, what
,ille, Aving 0,. gwe to.oight ? Had a case been made out upon
4.,:teld, ~,,.. ' '"e Manufacturers or of the Members for London or
1.4 or,_ ai or th'! entering into ;committee with view to the total
kletuavt.Corthiaw_,
5 or the application of aafixed duty instead
b •4' Or ing Que. He could understand those who were in
411 th
~ a total r
la th. a' not • epeal.(Hear hear.) They proceeded upon the
~,t,
t,i,
tt..
rwithstanding the Complicated relations of society
441a_ j4,11',41',,t
IY, notwithstanding the amount of our debt and
t 4 opt of
.`,Jr`. noes, yet still those very incumbrances, and that very
oti:l;%er'puriteY constituted a reason why they should not submit
(toe rne lo,ii„ e----(liear, hear fear) They therefore argued that
tl,t,rQray wax to applY this r,reat pr,nciple of political
the
,11(41,,,ptvi'ree,° the cheapest markets'for the purchase of what.
'Qur,
theist'a Tr: kar, hear.) if it were wise to purchase in
let e
,tarkot that which the manufacturers required, of
(I,l!„l:!tineipivie Ild permit the farmer to act upon the same benevo.
kopi'tsterim
cheer Purchase for himself that which he required.--
1% 'eti ro 1 `Qeers ) It
.„ . eq)
i. ,„,
tha._ ia,as said that no more burdens had been t
ri.,,,, t ~, !„ , , n any other description of property. Ile (Sir R.
ttiv
~,,L:c nuted that t,t. F..r.,-* hold, Ts thlt . ' l'.
(cht,4 or ' pdrvi 1,0;.ri ..,pil• (I - t. 1 ' ''''- ;to call for a il!aision oi: that que,
6111,-`14.) • Cop '5 tortes with t:,e. , ,„riu,ition, of lie I. I'M Mr. FIELDEN felt compelled to
I `ratd__olPlttehthe nurob,:r of the poor which the factories adjournment of the debate.
..,eers)—and then lLt Hon. Members say whether strangers were then ordered to w
--- --- - _ _

rithdraw,