The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-14 00:00:00

that occasion. His opinions had been formed from his obser-
vations of what had really been the effect of the existing laws.
That was particularly a question which ought to be decided
more by the guide of experience than upon mere abstract rea-
soning ; he wished to bring itifairly to the test of experience.
He wished to look back to what passed since the year 1828—to
compare the results they had witnessed from the working of
the present laws with the anticipations of those by whom it was
recommended. Now upon what ground was that law re-
comrrended by those who proposed it. The first and
strongest recommendation was that it would ensure the,
greatest possible steadiness of prices. The Hon. Member for
the North Riding of Yorkshire stated last night, that no Corn-
law whatever could ensure steadiness of prices. His Right
Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, last nigh'
quoted the language of Mr. Canning, which fully showed that
that great Statesman expected thati the prices would range
from 555, to 855. Precisely the same language was held by all
the most distinguished advocates who recommended the mea-
sure to the House; but even after they had foundlthat law in
operation for a considerable time, it was stated by the present
Lard Ashburton, on a motion brought forward by Mr. Whit-
:ore to impose a moderate fixed duty on corn. In the year
525. to 71s. That these were the extreme
18,33, Baring. stated his full expectation that the prices
would range fro.._
points, for if they ever reacted 71s. such a high price could only
be maintained for a short time ; that they would range about 60s.
sometimes a little higher end sometimes a little iower—that,
was the view of Mr. Baring ; but i,a,a that been the effect
upon the laws? Had 525. and 71s. been tip extreme prices,
and only for short periods ? Sc, far on the contrary—let them
take the years 1834 and 1835—the prices were much below the
extreme point mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman. In those
years corn fell not to 525. but to Ns. On the other hand, with
respect to the extremely high prices, had the price of corn never
been beyond 715., and had they only remained at that for a short
period? The fact was, that in the present year, from September
last to the present time, being a period of six months, the prices
had been very considerably above 705., that in one period in the
month of January of the present year the price of corn was not an
average of 715., but the average actually amounted to 81s. 7d.
The next effect the law was to prodece was, that it was to
make the trade equable and steady—that we were net to have
an alternate deluge and dearth of foreign corn, but a gradual
and steady influx. Instead of that, we had had for six years the
ports closed, and in the present year, within the spasm of a single
month—nay, a week—we had nearly 1,500,000 quarters, Se
much for the equable and steady influx of corn. Then again, we
• were to have capital employed in English instead of foreign
corn. Had this been the case? Notoriously and decidedly
the reverse.
from suffering the inj:
Then, it was to protect the coesemers of corn
and the farmer from the greai:
nvetaienee Oecasioned by the high prices,
2istrets sqw)ltin4 frern low
.prices.
Had it either of those effects? ss...‘
this
111°:artsultfferlin'ags
notorious that the labouring population
severely from the pressure of high prices.—( Cheers.
With respect to the sufferings of the farmers from the law price,
he believed Hon. Members would not contravert that. ft
would not be denied that during a majority of years since the
establishment of the present Corn-laws, the farmers had been
suffering from the ruinously low prices to which corn had been
reduced. That was a fact of which there could be no dispute.
The Right Hon. Baronet last night read Ki ngs' speeches in which
this had been steed in five or six following years. He (Lard H, )
would not read those speeches, but he wished the House to
hear a statement-still more authentic—that contained in the
report of the Agricultural Committee of 1833 on this point.
The Committee stated that the Committee of 1831 expressed
a hope that the great body of the occupiers of the soil, either
from the savings of more prosperous times, or from their credit
and resources, would be enabled to surmount the difficulties
under which they laboured they were bound, however, to
express a fear that the difficulties alone had remained un-
checked, and to state that the savings or gains were greatly di.
minished, that the credit was failing, and the resources very
generally exhausted ; and this opinion was founded, not on the
evidence of the rate-payers, but many most respectable
witnesses, as well owners of land as surveyors and
agents. —( Hear, hear, hear.) Now having made these
statem7nts, Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not possibly
controvert !his fact, that the anticipations of the advocates
of the measure of 182 i had not in any respect been realized.
Hear, hear.) 11167 might differ from him as to the mode
of accounting for these fact;--they might say that but for the
law it would have been worse—that these great fluctuations
and all the other evils would have occurred had no such laws
existed; but it was incumbent on them to show that—the proof
rested with them, because the law of 1828 was passed at the
instance of gentlemen concjirring with the hunted interest, and
for the express purpose of protecting that interest. Bet though
he might fairly call on them to show this, he did not wish to press
the argument so far. He would endeavour to show, net enl3rthat
the Corn-laws had failed to avert the consequences which had
taken place, but that, en the contrary, the inconveniences
which had been suffered had been greatly aggravated, if not
produced by the provisions of that law—that they were effects
directly traceable by reasoning to that system. That was a pro-
position which he would endeavour to prove, but he could not
help noticing first, how remarkable it was, that in the course of
this debate, Hon. Gentlemen who had come forward in defence
of law, had one and all of them refrained from meeting the
question on the ground on which it ought to be met ; they had
not endeavoured to prove that the law had been really bene-
ficial to the landedinterest, particularly the Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Kent, who, in answer to the President of the
Board of Trade, said he was not prepared to deny the results,
but could only say that the Agricultural Committees of 1836
and 1837 never- contemplated a change in the law. The
Committee of 1836 was so totally unable to suggest
any cause for the agricultural distress which then existed
that they declined to come to any report whatever.—( Hear,
hear.) On that Committee there were seventeen county
Members to six gentlemen representing commercial constituen-
cies. He would endeavour to show how it was that both the
low price from which the farmer suffered, and the high price
from which the consumer suffered, had been aggravated by the
existing Corn-laws.---( Hear, hear.) He would first turn his
attention to the difficulties which were at this moment cape
rienced from high prices. Hon. Members could not fail to re-
collect that in inquiring into this subject the advocates of a fluc-
tuating duty had always contended in favour of that duty in pre-
ference to a fixed one, because they said when corn was dear,
it would be unjust to restrict the supply of the consumer, but
that we were bound to enable the people to get corn at the
cheapest rate. They said the falling of the duty would relieve
them from the inconvenience of the law, and give them
practically all the benefit of free trade. Now, how
was it possible that this should be the case ? Was it not obvious
that the argument proceeded on the assumption that there was
always to be found abroad a large reserve of foreign corn ready
to flow into this country when required? But corn could no
more be grown in foreign countries than in this, except upon
the expectation of demand; and if so, was it not clear that
great distress would be inflicted on the producer. What had
been the operation of the existing Corn-law? In the five
years immediately succeeding the passing of the present Bill,
the impart was L.,725,000 quarters, the ports never having for
a long period been closed by the amount of duty ; but in the
six years following and until the last harvest, the duty was con-
stantly so high, that corn could never be entered for home con-
sumption with advantage. Now, what must have been the
effect ? Of course the previous demand must have created an
expectation in the exporting countries that a demand
would be insured for this country, and that not after-
wards occurring, it was quite impossible there should
not have been a great reduction of corn in the markets
abroad, extreme distress to the landowner, and also to the
dealers in corn. It might have been concluded from reasoning
that such would be the case, but we knew practically that it
had been the case. He would refer the House to an extract
from a Hamburg newspaper of the year 1336, which des-
canted on the evils of the corn trade with this country, and
d most hazardous spes
trading in corn with us as a dangerous anbefore
wished the merchants of that country to give up all idea of
culation. They had the experience of six years them.
He would not dwell on the unnaturally low prices of corn in
the English manufacturers, and stimu
foreign countries, giving the foreign manufacturer a verir great ad-
vantage over ating the
l
former to push on vigorously into competition. True, these
prices could not long remain so. But they might happen
to be so at a time, and for a sufficiest length of time, to make a
crisis disadvantageous to our manufacturers, by encouraging the
foreigners to become our rivals, thus acting as a premium at our
expense. He would not further dwell upon what had been
already stated. He wished to show the House that it was im-
possible for our prohibitory system to have lasted six years,
without having gradually put an end to all expectation abroad
of aprofitable trade in corn with England, and putting an end
to the cultivation of wheat for our supply—so that when we had
a real occasion for foreigncorn, as in Autumn last, no practical
benefit was derived by the consumer from our ports being thrown
open—there being no extra quantity of corn then
abroad the prices there immediately rose when we wanted
some. True, our superior riches enabled us to draw a consi-
derable supply, but it was from the domestic store of the fo-
reignert, who suffered for our consumers, while the latter were
not relieved in point of cost. An Hon. Member had, in the
course •of the night, alluded to the riots which took place in
France some time ago, and on account of which the Govern-
ment of that country was obliged to close its ports against the
exportation of corn to this country. He (Lord Howick) was
not surprised at the conduct of the French people, nor did he
blame them. Their acts were the consequences of our Legisla-
ture.—( Hear, hear.) If we refused to permit a regular trade
in corn on a system of mutual benefit, the result must be that
corn must be raised abroad as well as at home, when we had a
defective harvest.—(Hear, hear.) Corn would then be
raised in foreign parts-50, 60, 100—even 200 per cent.
to the great injury of the foreign consumer. Was not this a
most distressing effect of our system ?—( Hear, hear.) But he
would beg the House to remember that we were excluded from
receiving any supply of corn, should we want it, from many
large districts in Europe. He believed that exportation to this
country was now entirely prohibited by law from all the ports of
France, from Belgium, from almost all Italy, including the
Austrian part, and the dominion of the Pope, and the two
Sicilies.—( Hear, hear.) But the bad effect of our system did
not end here. First, the uncertainty of our duties restricted the
field whence we could look for a supply to a narrow circle—next
they obliged the speculator in corn to draw his supplies from the
nearest ports. What was the operation then ? Corn immediately
rose, and the rates of freight and charges of importation also
rose. He was surprised to-night to hear an Hon. Gentleman
stating that some Prussian corn merchants made a high profit
by supplying one market. Yes, the German merchants were
secured against Odessa and other more distant ports. This was
the strongest argument that could be urged against the present
system. It was quite true that at present corn was imported
'from Odessa and other quarters, but the speculator, well-know-
ing the uncertaincy of his venture, would not enter into it with-
out a certainty of high profit. Thus the consumer had to pay,
whether the corn was brought from a distance or from a neigh-
&flaring port. Nor was this the whole extent of the evil. It was
a self- evidentprinciple thane trade would be caried on for a series
of years at • less—the profits of one year must compensate
for the losses of former years, or the trade. would be given up.
Now that principle applied to speculation in foreign corn for
all markets. The consumer must now pay not only .a present
profit to the speculator in corn, but he must also indemnify
him for what he has lost daring the last sie years.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) It was, necessary, therefore, that this
calculation should not be left out of sight when we talked a the
relief experienced by the consumer, from the sinking ei the du-
ties as the averages rose-ss( The confusion at the bar was beet
very great, the Speaker and several other Members called out in
vain, and at last the Noble Lord had to pause in his speech
and assure lion. Members who might be waiting for a division
that they might find a mere proper place for conver-
sation, in the meantime, than at the bar. This digression was
received with loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord
then proceeded to say that he would show the House what corn
esu2eters had lost occasionally by bringing supplies of foreign
-wrheat-to country,--( Hear, hear.) They had been in.
formed an inte.
esligent witness, that the loss in 1836 had
en owe He believed that this was
by t
not been less than 3,00 u,
tic was aware that it was founded
obtain
ininteforeientleadtioinni the_ trade,
exaggerated calculation, but as
of wore
hupeohnatdhetheevrideefenreee
endeavoured
.parsons
ed whoto
owhet
precise nature, on this subject, and which shook be less
liable to dispute. This informntion showed—( Here the noise
at the bar become so great, that the Noble Lord was
obliged to cease speaking, and cries of Orderl
order! Bar, bar ! Places, places ! resounded from all parts of
the House. The Members in the Galleries also carried on
their conversation in so loud a tone of voice, as to render it at
times difficult to catch what fell from the Noble Lord. Order
havinc, been partially restored, the Noble Lord continued.) He
woulcrnow'present to the House some calculations on this sub-
ject founded on information, the accuracy of which it was utterly
impassible to dispute. He procured a statement abowing the
ammult at corn which had been in bond during the last six YEW"
his object was to cgcertain only that part of the loos which 44
swear insaarred iii copse/pence of the recent speculations in
corn ; thisaff9inta sheavesi use tixpense that these speculators