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

our gold and silver was all leaving the country for foreign corn, 1
which was then at a very high price, and the Committee re-
ported that it was not only impolitic but dangerous to rely upon
foreign countries for the supply of corn. The Committee was
re-appointed in 1814, and they reported that when we were
most m want of corn, foreign nations had put a heavy duty upon
its export, and that so great was the improvement at home in
the produce of wheat, that, by some slight encouragement,
enough might be growls to supply the whole nation. A Bill
was introduced for the purpose of regulating the import by the
Hon. Member for Dundee, and the price was then fixed at
1055., but it was modified down to 804.—( Hear, hear. )
The Right Hon. Member told them last night that he
had altered his opinions, and would support the motion.
Then came Mr. Huskisson's Bill as an amendment to that Bill,
from a fluctuating duty, but it was not supported, and
it was lost ; in 1815 the Legislature took up the question,
and upon that occasion both sides of the House agreed that 1
some regulation should be made for the importation of foreign
corn. At that time the present Lord Deere, and the present
Lord Western went manfully into the question, and
said they would give the landed interest protection till
the price of corn indicated a scarcity, and then they
would insist that the ports should be open. He
considered that a graduated scale of duty was the best sys-
tem by which the importation of corn could be regulated.
The Act of 1815 was an experiment, and he admitted it had
failed, because when the prices rose a fraction above a certain
point, ports were thrown open for a certain period, and the
markets glutted, although there might be a sufficiency of corn
in the country for the home consumption; and, if the prices
fell a fraction below that point, the ports were closed,
although the country at that time might be actually in want
of foreign corn—these defects were remedied by the
graduated scale.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that on
this subject we should not consider what were the
wishes of the King of Prussia or the Emperor of Russia, but
should take care of ourselves. The Noble Lord the Secretary
at War, had entered into a long detail of the time which cer-
tain quantities of corn had remained in bond in this country,
and had stated that some of it had been taken out to be thrown
into the Thames. Ile regretted that any one should have so
completely failed in their speculation; but this corn had been
bonded in 1831, and not destroyed till 1837 or 1838. Now he
would only ask why it had been suffered to remain so long,
instead of being exported? This system of bonding corn
had been introduced by the Bill of 1815, and it had
been stated by Mr. Rose at that period, that his object was to
induce foreigners to transfer their corn from the mouths of the
rivers which were frozen up during a greater part of the year,
to this country for exportation ; so that by massing this country
the entrepot for foreign grain, we should always have a suf-
ficiency of corn to fall bank upon in the event of a failing in the
harvest. Why, he would ask, had not the Noble Lord adopted
the measure brought forward last year for facilitating the
grinding of this corn for th . purposes of exportation, as a
Cabinet measure ?—( Hear. ) His Hon. Friend, the Member
for Kent, had spoken in favour of the measure, and would have
voted for it, but for the intemperate speech of the Hon. non-
ber for Wolverhampton, to yards the close of the debate. He
(Colonel Wood) had voted in favour of that measure, because
he considered that it would be advantageous for this country to
become an entrepot for foreign corn ; but this was one of the
evils of oven questions. But had this corn been taken out of
bend, and thrown into the English market, it must have dis-
placed an equal quantity of British corn, and left it to rot in
the farmers' barns. It had been stated that at the end of the
harvest_ in last year, there was not more than six weeks' con-
sumption of corn on hand, and if this year the crops should fail,
doubts had been expressed as to whether sufficient corn could be
grown in the empire for the use of the population. He found by a
reference to Mr. Marshall's tables, that there were 20,000,000 of
acres of arable land in the kingdom ; this divided by 4 would give.
5,000,000 of acres for the growth of wheat. He took the pro-
duce at 22 bushels an acre—one bushel of flour would make IS
loaves, and supposing each individual to consume ane loaf and a
half in a week, each individual would consume 5 bushels of wheat
per head, per year : these 5.000,000 of acres, would produce
13,000,750 quarters of wheat annually—the consumption would
be 10,000,375 quarters leaving a surplus stock of 3,000,375
quarters of wheat; thus proving that the growth of wheat was
equal to the consumption. It had been attempted to represent
this as alandlord's question, but in the county which he represented
a meeting of the inhabitants had almost unanimously resolved to
maintain the present system. A petition to that effect had
been signed by the Lord Lieutenant, by the gentlemen, yeomen,
farmers, shopkeepers, and labourers, and he thought they un-
derstood their own interest as well as the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton. He believed the lower ranks of society
knew well that cheap bread meant low wages, and if the manu-
facturers wished to lower wages to the Continental standard
they must make the labourers subsist on Continental diet—
Continental labourers subsisted upon rye bread ; but he hoped
the day would never come when the English labourer should
not be able at one o'clock in the day to have his lump of wheaten
b read—his slice of bacon—
Mr. O'CONNELL—And his pot of beer.—(A laugh. )
Colonel WOOD—Yes, and his pot of beer—and
he hoped the time would come when the labourers of
Ireland would be able to substitute wheaten bread for potatoes.
Their soil was productive, their agriculture Was improving, and
their people industrious, and• they only wanted quiet to be pros-
perous ; and he would beseech Hon. Gentlemen connected
with that country not to vote for this Committee, for depriving
Ireland of the preference hitherto shown her in the English
market, and opening that market to countries more poor than
herself. Some Gentlemen advocated a fixed duty. A total
repeal he thought had few advocates, but many were disposed to
advocate a fixed duty. It appeared to him that if a fixed duty
had been imposed during the last Session, in the course of the
recess, Ministers would have had one of two courses to pursue,
either to have called Peril tment together for the purpose
of repealing that duty, or to have issued an order
in Council to that effect. Mr. Jacob had been exa-
mined upon the point whether a fixed duty could he sub-
stituted for a graduated scale, and he hod stated his opinion
that it could not : so with respect to Mr. Canning; he had
stated his opinion to be that a fixed duty never could be ef-
fectual. He lamented excessively that Ministe. s had not
taken a leaf out of Mr. Canning's book. He thought in spite
of the agitation which the Right I-lon. Gentleman, the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade had boasted that lie had set on
foot—(" Hear, hear," and cries of "No, no")—he thought
that in spite of the forebodings of the contest between the higher
and the lower classes—( Hear, hear)—that it was clear that a
graduated scale had done some good, and that instead of
the landlords, the tenants, and the peasantry, being separated,
they had become united, and he had ns doubt that if they were
assailed by what was called the pressure from without, they
would unite farther for the purpose of resisting oppression, and
upholding the country in that proud position which she had for
centuries maintained.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS then rose to address the House.
He begged to state that the observations that had just been
made by the Gallant Officer opposite with respect to his Right
Hon. Colleague, the President of the Beard of Trade, were
totally without foundation. His Right Hon. Friend had never
stated that he had put in train the agitation that had taken place
upon the present question. He (Mr. Mark Phillips) believed
that the words used by his Right Hon. Colleague were, that he did
not regret that that agitation had sprung up.—( Hear,
hear.) Frequent allusion had been made during the de-
bate to the Chamber of Commerce of the town he had the
honour to represent. He (Mr. Mark Phillips) felt bound
to complain of the statements of the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for the county of Salop. That Noble Lord had
stated that the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester had
been guilty of causing all the agitation on the present sub-
ject. The Noble Lord had stated th'at it appeared to him
that the Chamber of Commerce had resorted to the most
unjustifiable means for the purpose of getting up agitation,
and that they had done all in their power to foment in-
subordination. Now he (Mr. M. Phillips) must give that
statement the most unqualified denial. He held in his hand
a petition which had been distributed with the votes two
days ago, from West Norfolk, and if that petition was t o
be taken as expressing the opinion of the agriculturists
of Norfolk, and of the country generally, it was important
no doubt that it should be extensively circulated, in order
that the manufacturing interest might know what they had
to expect. That petition commenced by stating that the
petitioners had read the resolutions of the manufacturers
of Manchester, and they deeply deplored their short-
sighted views. The petitioners felt bound to come for-
ward and attempt to resist their designs, by showing what
would be the real effect of the repeal of the Corn laws
on not; only the agriculturists, but the manufacturers
themselves. Ile (Mr Mark Phillips) was one who had no
wish whatever to deny any right to the agriculturist for
the purpose 'of advancing the interest of the manufac-
turers. All that he wished was that the rights of
each should be preserved. It appeared to him that during
the whole course of the present debate, some great mis-
takes had-been made by those who had spoken on the sub-
ject.. One great mistake which many gentlemen had made
—those who had advocated the cause of the landlords—that
those who were the advocates of the repeal of the Corn-
laws wished to depend upon an entire supply from abroad.
Now, that, in his opinion was begging the question. The
advocates- of repeal-were too-fond of their own trade to wish
to be dependent on other countries. Many statements had
been rnide by his Iron. Friend the Member for the North
Riding of Yorkshire, to which it was necessary for him to
refer. He had stated, in the first place that cheap corn
made the labourer the dearest tread. Now he (Mr. M.
Phillips) could not understand bow his Hon. Friend
the fact was the very reverse
thatomn made
the et h oe u.
mt such
anf aContinent.e at
upr e r or
Hon. Member bad also stated
Ps
ooTsfhittehioen,c;ountry had no right to contend
against the existing laws, inasmuch as they had invested
their capital with a knowledge of those laws, and therefore
that they hall no right to complain. If such an argument
was to stand good, the result would be that no person had
a right to make any -complaint against the existing laws.
It might as well have been said that the people had no
right to make complaints against the monopolies that for.
merly existed in trade, and that the monopoly that existed
in the trade with the East Indies ought never to have been
removed. The Hon. Member had made a most extraor-
dinary admission on the part of' the landlords,
He had stated that the re:urn of corn sold in foreign coun-
tries was as fedi. to one, whilst in. England it was as eight
to one; .by his own statement, therefore, showing that the
English agriculturist had a protection of a hundred per
cent. over the foreigner The Hon. Member also went on
to state that with regard to the number of individuals con-
nected with the woollen and cotton trade he could only
reckon about 355,000, and upon that he had built up an
argument that those who were calling for repeal were only
a few dissatisfied individuals. The Hon. Member in that
calculation bad stated the mill-owners at 3,286, but he had
altogether omitted to state the number of bleachers and
weavers connected with that trade, which he (Mr. M.
Phillips) believed, at a moderate computation, might be
set down at 800,000. He had also forgotten to include in
his calculation, the calico printers, the engravers, and
the block•eutters. Taking all those individuals together,
he (Mr. M. Phillips) did
not believe that he should he
going too far, if he set down the whole number of indi-
viduals dependant upon the cotton trade, at 1,K10,000
persons. It was then stated that Foreign Potentates might
be inclined to take advantage when the stock of, corn was
low, to insist upon a heavy eu:y upon articles shipped from
their own ports. If they chose to fix a tax upon their own
subjects, no doubt there might be found Potentates
rash enough to make such a tax, but for his own
part he thought that the best mode of preventing Foreign
Potentates from having recourse to such proceedings,
was to enter into more firm and friendly relations with
them—great fears had been expressed of this country
not receiving supplies from foreigners at all. He thought
that that was begging the question. He did not think that
any serious apprehension could be entertained upon that
subject, and as far as he understood the connection be-
tween one country and another he believed that the corn.
mercial relations entered into between them were the best
source of amity. The Hon. Member tben proceeded to
read the opinion of Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade, re-
lative to the connection between this country and Ame-
rica, and stated that the effect of the relations of this
countrywith the United States,was that out of 1 000,000 hags
of cotton, 800,000 were exported from the United States,
and yet we have never experienced an inconvenience. The
Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, stated