The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-18 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF
BREECHES-POCKET LEGISLATION.

It is quite true, as Lord Ashburton is reported
l to have said in a late debate, that he opposed, in
1815, the addition of a great exorbitant duty on
I foreign corn, but it is not the less true that the
arguments he then used were in favour of complete
freedom of trade, and that he then taught the nation
to mistrust the landowners. We must lay before
our readers additional proofs of this, because, as
we foresaw, the Noble Lord's declaration has been
eagerly caught at by the Corn-law Journals, and
by them Lord Ashburton is now held up as a
miracle of sagacity.
The passages of the N oble Lord's speeches,
which we have already quoted, show that he was
then against all restriction, and he illustrated the
effects of restrictions in causing fluctuations in
Iprice, by supposing that one country would not
communicate with another. Such restrictions, said
Mr. Baring, drove ingenious artizans abroad—they
drove our manufactures out of the continental roar-
ket--they enabled foreigners to under-sell us—
they drove capital abroad—they made the whole
people pay a higher price for bread than was necces-
sarv, to cultivate barren lands—they were opposed
to the dispensations of Providence. He insisted
1 that restrictions on corn were not an exception to
these general rules, and he showed conclusively,
that a country never could be starved which had
an open trade with all the world. He demonstrated
that every shilling tax on corn levied a large sum
from the people to keep up the rents and value of
land, and he insisted, over and over again, that the
landlords had a bias or sinister interest, which ren-
dered it folly to trust them. Such, shortly to re-
capitulate them, was the substance of the opinions
of Mr. Alexander Baring in 1815, and though
they were spoken in opposition to a law which went
to enhance a duty previously levied, they are as
conclusive against a auty of a single shilling a
quarter as against 20s.
We shall now quote some more of his former
sentiments, and if the wretched old man do not
feel much ashamed of his conduct, it must be that
a long course of money-getting has blunted in
him all the sensibilities of our common nature
Here is a passage from his speech, on February
22, 1815, which expresses quite as clearly as ever
we have expressed the murderous effect of a Corn-
law. It cuts down population, but it is otherwise
so valuable for its exact philosophy, that we should
have pleasure at any time in quoting it. Our
authority is " Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,"
Vol. 29, pages 972, 973.
" But then, according to the gentlemen on the other
side of the question, it was of the utmost importance
that eve should be independent of foreign countries for
a supply of food ; and we should, of course, by keeping
i
out foreign corn, force into cultivation all the lands n
the kingdom, at whatever expense, for the sake of being
independent. Here he would observe that no Go-
vernment which had the least regard for the welfare
and prosperity of the people entrusted to their care,
ever went on so absurd a principle as to force in this
manner, what gentlemen were pleased to call an inc:-
pendent supply. This was acting in direct opposition
' to the wise provision by which nature, in varying the
produce of different countries, had made them all de-
pendent on one another. Some countries were suited
to corn ; other countries possessed mines, fisheries, and
other means by which men could gain a subsistence,
hut were not adapted for corn. If Malta and Norway
had in thismanner taken it into their heads to make them-
selves independent of foreign countries for a supply of
food, they might long have scratched their barren rocks
and barren hills, before they could have produced one-
, tenth part of the subsistence which they procured in
exchange for their fisheries, and the other branches of
industry which nature had placed within their reach,
Undoubtedly, they might have, in this way, forced some
land into cultivation which would otherwise have been
neglected. In Malta the people even went so far as
to bring soil from Egypt and spread it on their rocks.
'there was no limit to the perseverance of human in-
dustry ; but on that principle of forcing a supply front
your own soil, for your ows population, your po-
pulation never can exceed your ou'x produce, and the
consequence, therefore, of that would be, that you must
cut down yonr population to suit your corn, instead of
regulating the supply of corn by the population. This
was not lengthening the bed to the man, but shortening
the man to the bed. The consequence of this system
on our own country would be this—though it was not
like Malta or Norway, unfit for the production of food,
yet it was in many cases in an analogous situation.
Scotland, for instance, was not fitted for the growth of
wheat. In some parts of the south of Scotland, he was
aware that the cultivation of wheat was practised ; but
in general the country was naturally ill-adapted for it.
What would be thought of the folly of the people of
Scotland—a people remarkable fur their ability and
wisdom—if on this principle no persons were to be per-
mitted to live in that country except they brought meal
and bread with them ? Instead, however, of acting in
this manner, a country, comparatively speaking barren,
was occupied by a people full of industry and enter-
prize, who brought from every quarter of the world that
which nature had refused at home. In the southern
parts of England there were many districts somewhat
in the same situation ; and the greatest part of the
country was more unfavourable for agriculture than
many of the countries on the Continent. It was
evident that we had more bad harvests, for instance,
than there were in the country over-against us. By
this system of forcing an independent supply, we should
he abandoning all those resources which we derived
from our industry in every part of the empire. Whe-
ther this additional 13s. on the quarter would drive the
cotton, iron, and other manufactures out of the country,
he would not, pretend to say ; but this he would say,
that every advance on the price of corn, and conse-
quently in the price of labour, was giving an advantage
to nur competitors in the market of Europe, and that
we ought to be on our guard how we hazarded any
measure which might have the effect of ruining an;
branch of our industry, and thus sacrificed the means'
which had already contributed so much to our wealth
and prosperity."

Now Lord Ashburton is a stickler for the ab-
surd principle of forcing a sufficient supply from
our own soil, which he then denounced.

We shall now jump over five years of the Mer-
chant's life, and, in 1820, he being then a great
merchant, this was the language he used. From
has then advocacy of free-trade principles, he was
chosen by the merchants of London (how is that
body now changed, and how is that once noble
name now prostituted to money jobbers and com-
mercial tricksters!) to present their celebrated peti-
tion to Parliament for the removal 'of commercial
restrictions ; and on May 8, 1820, Hansard re-
cords for him the following just and honourable
sentiments :

He -was perfectly persuaded that no laws could
long uphold the present price of produce in this coun.
try. Nor was it surprising that many parts of Europe,
as well as America, where trade was unrestricted by
the Idlers imposed on it in this country, beat us in the
market."

[ " The first doctrine which the petitioners wished to
combat was, that fallacious one which had of late years
arisen, that this country ought to subsist on its
own
produce ; that it was wise on the part of every country
to raise within itself the produce requisite for its eon-
! sumption. Now really it teas most absurd to contend,
that if a country by selling any article tf inannfacture
could purchase the produce which it ;night require, at
at half the expense at which that produce could be
raised, it should nevertheless be precluded from doin
so. It was one of the wise dispensations of Providenceg to give to different parts of the world different climates
and diierent advantages ; probably with the great moral
I purpoia of bringing human beins tog
;nal relief of their wants ether for the mu-
had B these absurd
found out that the only true wisdom was, in spite of
that benevolent ordination, to endeavour to produce at
home, by considerable effort and at great disadvantage,
that which with ease, and at half the expense, might
be procured elsewhere. To some countries greater ler-
greate r ingenuity on the part of
1 tility of soil, to others
the people, was imparted. Bul according to the pro-
found gentleman to whom
he alluded, no exchange
I
' should take place of the reduce of the one for the fabric
of the other. Nay, they would have the Swede or Nor-
wegian scratch his barren rocks, in the hope of a scanty
crop, rather than purchase with his ample forest the
means of kin.. from countries possessed of abundance."
" Every endeavour should be made to abolish restric-
tion
as far as it was practicable to do so. For instance,r,e.
in the article of timber. Why not allow the No .
gians, the Poles, the Russians, to import their timber
into this country, which would necessarily cause a great
consumption of British manufactures and great employ-
ment of British shipping ? And here he would observe,
that the restrictive system bad not only driven us nut of
the Continental market, but had communicated a cha-
racter of severity to our commercial regulations gene-
rally injurious to us. He was sure that our restrictions,
and especially those on the importation of timber, had
created many enemies who possessed considerable moans
)
of annoyance."
Next we find the Merchant, Mr. Baring, eclarin d
it was not ''by a restrictive system that
th
try had grown to such a pitch of gis
reatness, bucoun-
t on
the contrary, that system was a bar to that great-
! ness." Tiler. he expatiated on the evil effects
fully proved, which our example and our pros now
now
would hare on other nations, and he contended it
was our interest as well as our duty to remove thu false
Impression from their minds that our greatness was