The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-13 00:00:00

Er- r.. ED Frit)

not be long, lam certain, before we hear from them that I
they will have nothing to do with those laws whi ch have
no other practical object than that of raising the value of
land. I inn aware, Sir, that this is the only plea for this 111
law, and I have, therefore, dwelt upon it at greater length
that I should otherwise have done. But I believe that I
need make no apology for dwelling in detail upon any pert
of a question, every view of which must be regarded as of
paramount importance to the community at large. _( Hear,
hear. ) Indeed it would seem to me to be almost humiliat-
ing if we should find it necessary now to discuss the ques-
tion whether or not it would be advantageous to the corn-
munity at large to have the prime article of the consump-
tion of life cheap or dear?—( Hear, hear.) And really it
must be as clear as that to-morrow's sun wil! rise that if
the interest of those whose object it is to maintain high
prices were not very powerful, the proposition itself would
be met with scorn. Indeed if it were not for the great
interest one part of the community feel regarding the ques-
tion, and the ignorance of another, it would net be
necessary to enter into a discussion. Now, I shall say a
few words respecting the operations of the present law
upon the community at large. I find in the observations
of those who say that if a change were to be made in the
law, vast loss could not be averted on their side—l -snal
in this assertion evidence that the expense of the present
system is now borne by the community at lergss.—(Hear, 11
hear.) Does not the assertion of those interested in L
maintaining the present law, who say that if the prices of
foreign wheat be reduced they must lose, prove that the
public now suffers the difference between their profit and
loss ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, upon the very lowest cal-
culation which I can come to, illustrative of the
expense which the Corn-laws now entail upon the
public at large, I find our aggregate loss to be
not less than 10,000,0001. a year. But if you take the
statements of those who oppose any alteration in the pre.
sent law, it will be found much larger—fearful, therefore,
that they may be exaggerated, I shall not quote it. Taking
however, the very lowest quotation, it seems that the
Corn-laws, as they now stand, cost the country
10,000,000/. at least.—(Hear, hear.) Noe- a lAx of
10,000,00 C/. a year is equal to a pesasax of 8s- a• head
upon each individual, or :.• eemunts to 21. a year upon
eh l family.dbe
oozTthoi a
the . e it,.a,
value
et h
of aa large
i the'lsaslsaboofurlabourerslab
year : or taking his average number of hours per day at
ten, the amount which would be sacrificed in consequence
of the Corn-laws would be three-quarters of an hour per
day. But this is only the effect of the duty on wheat. In
many parts of the country oats are more important than wheat.
I therefore confine my specific calculation of loss to the
community upon the returns of the number of quarters e f
wheat consumed every year, and now beg leave to direct
the attention of the House to the influence of the Corn-
laws upon local and general taxation. lam particularly
desirous to do so, because the effect is not generally con-
sidered by the public with respect to local taxation. I will
take, for example, the Poor-rates. Now, in those Unions
already under the operation of the Poor-law Amendment
Act, the sum of 8,0001. a week is paid for flour. Now, if
it be shown that in this weekly expenditure of 8,0001.
there is double as much paid for flour as there ought to be,
is it not clear that under this head alone there is half
again as much as there ought to be taken out of
the poor-rates ? And if the Guardians of the Poor
could purchase the wheat at the price at which it might
now be deposited here from abroad, it is clear that half
that sum would be saved to their respective unions. But
the calculation does not end here. It is clear that what-
ever more than is necessary is taken from the Poor's-rates,
is so much deducted from the wages of labour, because th.,
rate-payers are generally men who require labour.—( Hear,
hear.) It is therefore worth while to consider how much
in each of these respective districts is, under the Corn-law
system, taken out of the rates, which might otherwise go
to the promotion of the objects of the Poor-law, or to the
remuneration of labour. The annual amount of Poor_
rates is now about 4,500,0001., and therefore their effect
forms no inconsiderable item in the expenditure of
every man,—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The inference
for this part is, that this subject is a labourer's question as
well as a rate-payer's question, and whenever we are called
upon to pay the poor-rates, we ought to ask ourselves
whether we must endure such heavy rates for the support
of the poor or on account of the Corn-laws ?—( Hear,hear.)
If we contribute for the relief of the poor, it will be mores .
fying to find that their relief is so disproportioned to what
it ought-to be ;if for the Corn-laws, we must upon a gene- '
ral consideration of the question admit that it is absurd and
unjust to do so.—( Hear, hear.) I find that nearly 100,000/.
a year are raised from the county rates for the support of
county prisons. The rates upon land are in-
creased 40 per cent., by the cost of provisions. I
Lunatic asylums and all of our other pubic
institutions are affected by them ; in short, the benevo- I
lence, the charity, and the usefulness of all our public esta- 1
blishments are limited in consequence of the high price of 1
ofno
tt lai e
departmentCern-lasys -
appropvlyisitoonlso.t
li effectsoro i s
of the public service to which they do not apply. The '
local taxation. manner,lndetdhe,
expense of the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance is more
than 8,000,0001. a year. Now, all the contracts for these
forces arc regulated by the price of provisions. In the
Army the soldier is guaranteed by the Governmeot
against paying more than 6d. for his bread. Who pays the
difference? Why the people.—( Hear, hear.) Looking at
the Miscellaneous Estimates, 1 find that they are above ;
2,000,000/. a year. In short, there is not an item in the
system of national finance into which the operation of the I,
Corn-laws does not enter. One of their leading con se . f
quences is, that they oppress the public with a greater t
amount of taxation than is necessary fur the State. H, re
it may be properly considered how many beneficial on- 1
jests may be accomplished by a reduction of the taxation,
which in the aggregate is paid by the consn.:ner, acid
which in the item of the Excise amounts to 1e,000,0001.
a year. We have seen how anxiously the parties interested
have solicited this House to take off the post-horse duties,
Why ? Because the parties have been nearly ruined by
the recent improvements which have taken place in our i
tmi
system of communioation, But the parties did not come k
to solicit protection against the locomotive engines, n:r
to be indemnified against the railroads, but because they 1
than,
, under they are obligedthe
competition to pay m more for
havethe neoe‘ tot of
clei
ei shier horsescin t e
r,
tpv h
publicds 1
that bear
tat
6
they can afford, But why have not those duties been I
revenueusethesuppose tuhle d
tdai kmei nn
u t ioolin‘. ? B üßectdao you
not consider all this? Do you not think that they
culate that the present artificial price of food is thenuvr cat-
why they pay more than is necessary for the public cause
and that consequently they will not be more ai,c service,
ontented J
every year ?—( Hear, hear.) There are, moreover,
private interests which would feel the operation of 't any
in a most distressing manner; as, for instance, the this
:
ping interest, as any one connected with it can illustrate
Besides the increase of the price of provisions consumed in
ships which it produces, it deprives them of a very profit-
able business they would otherwise have in bringing foe
reign grain to our ports. I was at Ilamburgh about two
months since, and I found that the difference in this in-
stance alone amounted to between 40 and 50 per cent. I found
several vessels were loaded with flour for Newfoundland
and other colonies of ours, and also that flour mills had
been erected and completed in consequence of the rejection
of the Bill of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth.—
( Hear, hear.) In considering how our enormous pub r
lie debt is supported—a debt that is larger than that
of all other countries together, including that of the ", •
East India Company, I am told that the people tvlip I
pay that debt are burdened with a third heavy charge,
in order to enable them to sustain two others. These
three burdens are—the public debt, the public service, i
and the aristocracy.—(" Hear," and laughter.) Now,, ,
looking to the comparative resources from which the means t
ofsupporting the two former burdens have been derived, I
and seeing how great a portion of the money has been pro- I
duced from eor manufactures, I conic to the conclusion
that our resources would be much increased, if the Corn-
laws were repealed. Now that they exist, they do not add
to our wealth ; and if they were repealed, they would not
endanger the result of our public credit. I want to know
how our public credit could have been maintained, or how
our burdens could have been met, if it were not for our
foreign trade? and as we have been enabled to contract
that great debt, and to sustain the expenses of a war
through our manufactures, so it is clear that we should be
enabled to maintain our credit and discharge our
debt through supplies from them. How do we raise
22,000,0001. in Customs' duties, but from the manufactures?
Surely it is not from exporting the produce of the
soil ? It is only raised from, our manufactures. Why,
then, should you make light of those
manufactures?
1
! really believe but thk for the operation of the Corn-laws
we might by this time have almost discharged the National
Debt through the revenue from the manufacturers,
if our commerce had been permitted to he as wide as it is
powerful. Indeed, it requires such a scheme as the Corn-
laws to check us in our career of prosperity; and certainly
the effect has been complete. The effect of the Corn_
laws is to lower the price of labour at home, and to enhance
at the same time the price of food, while they act as a
kind of premium to the foreign manufacturer ; and I am sa-
tisfied, if they be persevered in on the scale on which they
have already commenced, that every year a greater amount
of our capital and a larger number of artizans willrbtieiecoubie-
pelled to leave this country ; but lam sure that, if y
repealed, that check will be removed which we
iwr eEn. i
ro.
appre-
hend so much. It will promote a demand
3ro'vfsilosnisp- it
duce by increasing the demand for foreign
provisions;
will at least take away the advantage that
.isasuperabundant
abour now gives to the foreign competitor... It moat
have still time enough to
important consideration that we
b;this rn-
correct the greatest error which country has ever co
.. .
mitted. It happens by singular coincidence that within
two years those duties which now preclude . the importation
of our manufactures into the north of (
Europe,
The Germany,
sail expire. parties
and the United States,
to the Commercial League will assemble in 1841, and no
doubt if we in • the mean time should make arrangements
for receiving ' their timber and grain, no doubt they will
draw up a tang' • favourable to the reception of our maim-
factures, which they now exclude. Again, if we
repeal
• l the Corn-laws, it will become an important con-
sideration with the United States whether they shall ems
ploy their capital in agriculture, or persevere in manufac-
turing- against us as at present. Indeed the most impor-
tant advantages, political as well as commercial, will
result from our uniting with the United States in the solid
grounds—in the intercourse of neutral trade.—( Hear,
hear.) in my opinion, no consideration is more
important than that of extending our commercial relations
with other countries._( Hear, hear.) I think it is impos-
sible for any man not to admit that it would be more rea-
sonable to expect peace, wealth, and prosperity
from a friendly commercial intercourse with foreign nations,
than by raising a powerful army or navy, or making trea. •
ties or alliances.—( Hear, bear.) I cannot conceive a more •
useful occupation for our Minister of Trade or Foreign Af.
fairs, than to devote his attention to the means of extend-
ing those relations, not only for the purpose of increasinca
' our wealth, but also to allay those apprehensions as to the
existence of peace, which have of late been so generally
felt. As great alarm is now felt as to the disposit n
Northern Powers, I think we could not have aon
favourable opportunity of enlisting those Powers, especially
Prussia, and 1 believe that if Prussia were induced by the hc ,
offers of a free trade from our Government enlist t o enli her-
! , self on our side, it would be as impossible for the other
States to prevent that measure as it was for the 13 '
nltse a
1 1 States to resist the institution of a tariff by South Caro-
,3,ro_ (