The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-25 00:00:00

THE
COURT OF COMMON COUNCI
[Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.]
-. ' Mr. NORRIS, after some introductory observations, said
that the question had at length forced itself upon the country
in its most formidable shape ; it was not now simply whether
the British public should have cheap or dear food, but whe-
ther the population should be practically starved down to the
limits of our native produce by a system of re<triction
which insured a permanent scarcity at all times, and with it
want of employment and desperate poverty amongst the
labouring classes, and produced such fluctuations that em-
barrassment in our shipping and mercantile interests, and
derangement of our whole fieancial system were its sure re-
sults..---( Hear, hear, hear.) The difficulty of the question
was, that those who possessed the advantages of the mono-
poly had the means of making not only the laws of which
we complained, but all other fiscal regulations which
aggravated, for their own advantage, the many evils of this
monopoly, and which, as population increased, bore harder
and harder on the poor, the industrious, and injured classes
of the people.—( Hear.) There was not an article of luxury,
or even of necessity, which could not be purchased as the ap,
or cheaper in this metropolis than at _Amsterdam or Paris, st
Antwerp or Hamburgh. It would be fair, therefore, to make
comparison of the price of corn in these respective places and
in London, the result of which comparison would be a proof
that during the last half-dozen years we had been paying an
average of from So to 70 per cent. excess on the price paid
in the places named ; indeed the difference in price between
foreign corn under the bonded lock, and home grown produce
in the market, calculated on the probable quantity consumed
in a year by the British public, was more than equal to the
interest of the national debt.—( Hear, hear.) One argument
often used to extenuate the injury inflicted by the existence of
this bread-corn monopoly was, that without this or some such
protection the British farmer would not be remunerated for
cultivating, and that consequently some of our inferior soil
would go out of tillage. Why, this empty fallacy was an-
swered by the fact, that without this protecting duty, in the
15 years immediately preceding it, being called into existence,
1,410 inclosure bills passed the House of Commons, and in the
fifteen succeeding years, with the full benefit of the Corn Bill,
only 380 such bills were applied for. Some gentlemen had
ventured to suppose that unless prices were permanently
high the foreign grower would not cultivate to supply us—
a striking example of the contrary of this proposition was
shown in the price and the quantity of coffee supplied to
this country now, and, as compared with the quantity and
price, at a period when little encouragement was given to its
cultivation. In 1814, we imported 100,0001bs. of coffee from
countries not contiguous to us like the corn growing coun-
tries, but from the far west, from islands, the nearest of which
was more than three thousand mites from Europe, and since
that period, by the encouragement of increased consumption,
the facilities of growing had been improved, until we now got
four times that quantity at less than one-half the price per
pound. Cotton, another article of foreign produce, and of
immense importance to us, had since 1814, been increased,
by the same principle, in the quantity sent us, from eighty
million pounds up to three hundred million, that was to say,
nearly four times as much, and the price had gone down to
cinesfourth what it was at the period alluded to, and yet that
article, like coffee, had a limited extent of country congenial to
its growth, and, unlike corn, neither so universal in the facilities
of its production, or so essential in its uses to the existence or
happiness of man. The truth was, that under our system of Corn-
laws, is hich were as barbarous in their operation as they were
liad.in principle, the continental farmer would not, could not,
for the precarious contingency of our market, attempt to grow
for us. The unnatural and destructive fluctuations of price
prevents him from doing it to any greet extent. Since 1815,
the average annual import had been upwards of 1,300,000
quarters. In some years scarcely any, in others (1827 for
instance) more than 2,000,000 quarters. In 1830 above
2,700,000, and in 1832 one-sixth of that quantity. Foreign
farmers could not, therefore, be expected to cultivate for us
on such terms, nor could merchants be expected to enter on
the speculation of bonding without some combination amongst
themselves to insure a certainty of profit on their hazardous
enterprise. The mean average fluctuation of price in the
five years ending 1789. a period when no laws existed to affect
the price, was 4s. 10d. per quarter, and the mean average
fluctuation under the present graduated duty in the five years
ending 1832, was 15s 10d., showing, therefore, a difference
of I Is. per quarter less of fluctuation under a free system
than under the present law. In 1829 the price of wheat
varied, during the year from 565. up to 755. per quarter;
and, indeed, continually since, the fluctuations had been
greater than previous to the adoption of the present scale
of duties, the professed object of which was to pro-
duce a fishy of price and a steady supply. If, however,
this country be compelled to legislate on the principle of inde-
pendence of foreign produce, most assuredly such principle
ought, if adopted, to be carried to the fullest extent in its
application. Think of the inhabitants of the county of Mid-
dlesex eating only of its produce ; the citizens of London
providing for themselves : the official organs of the
Government adopting the Government plan of inde-
pendent production, and growing at their garret
windows, or on the tops of their Downing-street resi-
dences, the corn for their official " loaves ;" the officers of the
Royal Household growing corn for the regal banquets on the
battlements of Windsor Castle. This would be an exemplifi-
cation of the great principle of local independence, and would
be, by the lanksided and meagre-looking victims of its folly, a
splendid satire on the impolicy and injustice of such enact-
ments.—(Cheers.) Mr. Norris concluded by moving an
amendment in the place of the third resolution, to the effect of
a total repeal of the restrictions upon the importation of corn.
Mr. Wirsts seconded the amendment. It became them, as
men of character and humanity, to pray for the total repeal of
those laws, leaving it to the Members of the House of Com-
mons to propose, if they thought fit, a modified duty. He
concluded by stating that there existed no doubt that the poorer
classes of society required a total repeal of the Corn-laws,
and that such being the case the Court ought to come to the
determination that that, and that alone, was the wise, the just,
and the politic course to be adopted.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GADSDEN said it had been stated, and cheered, in that
Court, that the farmer was not at all interested in the question,
because his rent would be as much reduced as the abolition of
the duty required. There never was a greater fallacy than
that. The Court had sincerely been told that the poorer the
land the greater the expence of tillage. He knew many farms
in Essex which, to grow wheat, required expenses amounting
to U. ns. an acre, without allowing one farthing for the rent or
tithe. Suppose the farmer, now, to get 30 bushels of wheat
from that acre, and that he sold it for 7s. a bushel, which
would give 101. 103., how was he to pay rent ? If the land-
lord gave him the land free, he could not grow corn without
protection. If the Corn-laws were repealed the poor lands
throughout the country must be thrown out of cultivation, and
how were the agricultural labourers to be provided with em-
ployment ?
Alderman WHITE belonged to a trade which was formerly
one of the most extensive in the country, and the consequence
was that it was liable to the most constant fluctuations. The
high favour in which it stood had rendered it one of the mos
sickly trades that had ever existed. He meant the silk trade,
But one wise and far-seeing Minister arose, who at once re.

CORN

W

moved the restrictions, and-the trade became as healthy and
flourishing as any that ever existed in the country. He meant
Mr. Huskisson.—(Cheers.) The removal of the restrictions
by that great man at once made us larger exporters of silk to
foreign countries. Mr. Gadsden had told them much about
the 51. 2s. an acre of land cost for tillage in Essex; but he
would ask why should such land be in cultivation at all?--
...

(Hear, hear.) If the Theory of Mr. Gadsden were carried

out at all we must become growers of our own claret and
champagne.
Mr. MAITLAND said, that it would be sinning against the
first principles of free trade, to do aw_ay with every restrictive
duty on foreign corn. He stood not there to argue in favour
of the present scale of duties. Should they afford an exorbi-
tant protection to the agriculturists, he would concede that
they should be revised, and the protection diminished. But
he would never concede giving to the world a wild chimera to
curry favour wilh the capitalists at the real expense of the
operative himself. The effect of thus agitating the coun-
try against the Corn-laws would be soon to paralyse entirely
the landed,intereats.

After amo. further observations to the same effect were
made, the debate wag, upon the motion of Deputy Corney,
adjourned, and tl:e Lord Mayor fixed Monday for the conti.
nnation of it.

The Court adjourned at a late hour.
The following resolution was also proposed :
That the misting restrictions on the importation of Foreign Corn,
while they confer a temporary and questionable advantage on a small
class of the people, entail a heavy and increasing burden upon all
the rest of the community. That by their operation the price of
food is enhanced to the artisan, the mechanic, and labourer,
at the same time that the demand for their labour, and their consequent
means of purchasing it are diminished—that in the same ratio that
the manufactures of this country are impeded and discouraged, those
of other nations are fostered and encouragrd in a successful com
petition with our own in those departments in which but for
these unwise restrictions this country would be without a rival, while
the foreigner on his part is restricted from growing the food of which
we stand in need, and which it would be his interest to produce.
That this Court do therefore petition the Cotnmons House of Par-
liament to remedy this great evil, by substituting for the present fluc-
tuating, but generally exorbitant rate of duty, such a moderate charge,
to be periodically diminished until it become nominal, as shall be suiti.

cient to prevent the change from pressing with undue severity upon any
portion of the cultivators of the soil—and further, that this Court have
leave to appear by Counsel, and to produce evidence at the Bar of the
House in support of the allegations on which such petition is founded.