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

was all very well for the opponents of the Corn-law, to take the I
highest and the lowest points in the scale, and say these in-
dicated the extent of fluctuation. The proper method of
calculation was to take the variations, at periods since 182 S,
and compare them with periods—not about 1815 (considered
snore defective by these Gentlemen)—but period, when this
was an exporting country ; and when, therefore, the influence
of the Corn-laws, as producing smitten influx of imports, could
not have been felt.—( Flear, hear.) And on this comparison
he must say that he was wholly at a loss to see what justification
would be alleged for the strong condemnation .of the present
system. Let him first remark, that this system had for seven
years afforded an average price of 525. a quarter. He admit-
ted this was not conclusive as to the point of fluctuation, still it
was important to show what had been the average price of corn
during the operation of this law.—( Hear, li'ar.) Now, the
annual average variations (and the account was of course
correct, as it issued from Anti-Corn-law documents) were as

follow :

In 1829
1830
1831
1:32
1833
1834
Mr. LA BO UCH ERE here interrupted. in a low tone, across
the table, but his observation, being an arithmetical statement
(always difficult to catch), was, moreover, delivered in so low
a tone that we could barely collect the purport of it to be, that
for a number of months the price was between 655. and 705.,
and for forty-four months of the period between 555. and 655.
Sir R. PEEL—But it would not be denied that for upwards
of ninety months the price was below 655.—( Hear, hear)
below the price fixed by Mr. Canning's maximum (and it ap-
peared he con idered that low prices were essential to prosperity ),
though it need not at all be denied that for feurty-four months
the price was between 555. and 65s.—for that period included
below 655.—( Hear, hear)—and thus, for 100 nearly out of
143 months (he believed that. to be the number) the price of corn
had been below 655.—( Hear, hear.) Well now, he would state
the averages of variations in periods previous to 1784 and 1765,
when this was an exporting country. The price of wheat was—
In 1728 ... 484. sd. a quarter. In 1750 ... 28s. 10d. a quarter.
1732 ... Mt. Bd. 1757 ... 535. 4d.
1740 ... 455. Od. 1761 ... 265. 3d.
1743 ... 225. Od.
Thus, then, it would be found that there had been fluctua-
tions far greater in those periods when we exported corn, than

under the existing Corn-law.—(Hear, hear. ). In these seven
years five were years of excess of export over import. It was
clear, therefore, that the fluctuations could not have arisen
from sudden importations of corn.—( Hear, hear.) He re-
ferred to these statements to confirm his argument, that the
price of corn, more than of any other article, depended on the
defect of supply, or the excess, and that neither the one nor the
other could be foreseen or provided against.—( Hear, hear. )
The fluctuations referred to had not been the result of varia-

tions in the currency, nor agitation of political questions; they
showed that the effect of changes in supply had upon prices an
influence in a much greater ratio than in any other article.
Now, though he admitted certain fluctuations under the pre-
sent system, he believed they could not be said to be so great
as those which occurred without a Corn-law.—( Hear, hear.)
What would have been the effect if there had been a fixed

duty—if, as in 1533, 1834, and 1835, there had been a succes-
sion of good seasons in this country, and at the same time a
succession of good seasons upon the Continent--and, in conse-
quence of the immense production of foreign corn, a corre-

sponding reduction of foreign prices? On the principle of a
fixed duty, the foreign grower would have a right to import
into this country. Was it not possible that the reduction of ahe
price on the Continent, where there was no demand for corn,
would induce you to undersell the home producer of this coun-
try?—( Hear, hear.) There might thsn be a great discourage-
ment of the home grower, and land would be thrown out of
cultivation. Thus great productiveness of home cora for three
or four years might discourage the home grower, and lead to
the same alternation, so as to limit the supply for some sea-
sons. He now came to the third head. He knew that it was
tiresome to reiterate the same arguments on one side, and to
repeat the same statements on the other side, for the purpose
of refutation ; it must be tedious in so large a political assem-
bly, but it was the only way in which such a question
could be dealt with. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
said that if those who took part in the discussion in favour of
the Corn-laws last year could foresee that so great a falsification
of their arguments was to follow, they would have paused be-
fore they came to the decision to which they arrived. Those
who followed the Hon. Member took it for granted from his
statements of manufactures for export and for home consump-
tion. Now, for his part, he regarded every thing connected with
commerce and manufactures with great anxiety. He thought,
after all, that to maintain the position of this country in the
scale of nations depended mainly upon the prosperity of its
commerce and manufactures, and he would tell the agricultur-
ists that the best friend they had was the manufacturer.—
(Loud cheers.) Therefore when the Honourable Gentle-
man told him that the manufactures of the country were on
the decline, and that there had been a great and rapid dimi-
nution of consumption he listened with the utmost respect
and attention, and he endeavoured to ascertain whether
a statement so important and melancholy was well founded.—
( Hear, hear.) He had there the official statement of the
foreign trade of the country—of the imports and exports.—
(Hear, hear.) When he heard that confident statement—that
there had been such an immense depression of the foreign trade,
he looked with anxiety to the official report, and he found that
the gloomy anticipations of failure and distress were not alto-
gether borne out.—( Cheers.) He had the satisfaction of find-
ing that there did appear to be a considerable increase in the
export of manufactures last year.—(Cheers.) He did not
know whether his Hon. Friend the Member for Kendal was
in his place. If he were, he would remind him that last year
when he (Sir R. Peel) proved, or rather when the Hon. Mem-
ber admitted to him that there had been a great increase in the
export of; manufactured goods—the argument with which the
Hon. Member met him was that, although there was an increase
in the total amount of exports in 1838, compared with 1837, or
of the four preceding years—although there had been an in-
crease in the declared value of the articles exported, yet the in-
crease in the perfectly wrought articles was exceedingly small,
and the increase had been principally in those articles scarcely
removed from the raw produce, and which were the elements
of manufacture for other countries.—( Hear. )
Mr. WOOD—I am the individual who made that state-
ment.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir R. PEEL—Truly the Hon. Gentleman could not think
that he (Sir R. Peel) could possibly forget that, in seconding
the address. The Coin-law agitators (as we understood) had
not forgotten it—( A laugh)—and he (Sir R. Peel) did not
wish to deprive him of his honours.—(A laugh.) The Hon.
Gentleman was the very person who said that there was every
indication of prosperity in the returns of the imports and ex-
ports.—(Cheers ) He (Sir R. Peel) could never forget the
faces of those who relied on the President of the Chamber of
Commerce for proving the depression of trade, and the neces-
sity of reps aling the Corn-laws.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
But on another occasion, when the increase of the
exports was referred to, the Hon. Member said that the increase
was only on the articles in the rudest state. In the average of the
four years preceding 1838 the declared value of the exports
was 25,757,0001., in 1838 it was increased to 26,129,000/.
That was an increase of only one and a half per cent. on the
whole of the exports, whilst the increase in the export of the
raw material in the same period was from 6,599,0001. to
8,452,0001., being an increase of twenty-eight per cent.
He then turned to the return of the present year, and he looked
to the exports of the wrought fabric in the cases to which the
Gentlemen had referred. He looked first of all to the cotton
manufactures generally, and he compared the years 1838 and
1839, and 1839 was the year when the great depression of the
manufactures took place. The declared value of cotton manu-
factures exported in 1838 was 16,785,0001., and in 1839 they
were 17,694,0901.—( Hear, hear.) In linen manufactures
there was increase ; in 1838 it was 2,730,0001., and in 1839
3,453,000/. In silk manufactures there was an increase from
777,0001. to 86,0001.: and in the woollen manufaieures there
was an increase trorn 5,795,0001. to 6,270,0001. He was nqt
saying that there was conclusive proof of manufacteriew prospe-
rity ; he was only saying that so far as official documents went
it could not be said there had been any decline
in manufactures. He relied upon the official documents,
and the) showed thet there had been an increase of the exports
in the linen, silk, and woollen manufactures. So far es the
foreign exports were concerned, there was all ins j atjAn of an
increase in the manufactures, he would nit say in the prosperity
of the country. The total increase, combining all those sepa-
rate articles or perfectly wrought fabrics, was, from 1838 to
1839, from 23,170,000/. to 28,220,0001. In the result of the last
year the lion. Gentleman had said there bad only been an in,
crease of per cent. on the value of the eeperted articles in
the perfectly wrought material. During the present year there
had been an increase of 8 per cent. on th., perfectly wrought
fabric, But thee, perhaps, the Gentlemen would meet him by
saying, Yes, but there has been an immense increase
in particular article of* manufacture, marnely, yarn ; ikark
perhaps they bad been exporting those art;i.W.e,tf\at esseblest
the foreigner to compete wit theft Now \iv, tiass ale pleaeure
to state, that while wgc.a,§,c tii;e Wrought
Lbrip there, had ben iff.cr4se to of yarn.—
( flear, experi or cotton yasti in 1838 was
i,466,000/.; while in 1839 it was 6,857,000/. ; in linen yarn
in 183 e it was 836,000/., while in 1839 it was 814,0001„ ; and
in woollen yarn there had been a similar decrease. ,fi„ ketal
decrease in the export of yarn 1709 ..?11 t 31,41,00/.. to
8,072,000/. Last yer thaye. vat au itscirease. of l 4 per cent.
nn tl-..p s.ireesstl4 1-ajtatitl Vihile there was a decrease of 23 per
dent. on yarn. Wow, what was the argument upon this sub-
ject—it was one certainly of some ingenuity. i here was a
complete admission of the increase in the exports of tha
wrought article—that would be an indication, yis appre-
hend, of prosperous manufaeturec cisensit was decovered,
tliat Io f ig fre,e that an indication of prosperity,
it a'proeftif .complete decline in trade, and it was ac-
counted for in this way—the foreign trade had been forced, and
the consequence of that was the total inability of tilt: him Fn-
sumer to make the article, aftd therafw se.farysßsupppeing Ate
increisFd tle tie a symptom ofmspe-cifk,i was cold efclpeey..
`llovf supostig thstt" Ise hailloirtidit great falling off in the for eige
trade, 'apt Supposin4 be iii d sa,id that the. copied tovvo,,;:. proof
of prosperity—that the Olin c:iff tya.; froTe,,isielrade arose from
!I'l4--ft 110 e, elimense increase of house eon-
stitni;lien, itl`therelore that instead of repining at that falling
i.frof the trade they ought to rejoice at it, 'or it was an indica-
tion of groat prosperity, what would have been eaid tc.lAirl/4),if
hu had rat forth such an argument ? '(et ',ltritit result
of ogle ,irgement that we pri tor a,
s`' rt. ' .Clin
oelfYihe tdtecta‘ increase
o the
df 'lia fbfefell fi'este via an indication
iiiimisifedtUrese 11e would as); whether that was not the argu-
ment ?

BAINES—No.
Sir R. PEEL rioter liked to qdrinol mut. thing hi that
House for the p•aviiifili gaiii4ig a temporary triumph which
(irnetirne's Was ',lone, but he had seen a paper purporting to
contain a speech of the son of the Hon. Member opposite. It
was entitled, " The Corn-law National Distress proved by in,
creased exports, combined with diminished production?," gad
there he found that that Gentleman stated tt That Otelt 01. e
advocates of free importation of nom arge that the eoantr/
heTn suffering 4 the 401 yev end ahalf front the high price of
tiread ; that trade is stagnant t that oar merchants and manu-
facturers are in deep embarrassment ; and that the working
classes are enduring the combined evils of want of employ-
ment and dear food ; they are met, in many quarters—and
those respectable and influential quarters—by a denial
of their premises; for there are gentemen who contelid.that
trade, so far from being crippled, it yigor.traarffid nourishing;
and they prodnoe an Acial rei.nerw, 410 pri(disied, of the ex-
tipyts pritoo# ittin4aetares for the years 1838 and
=t4 w ligh seeing to hear out their assertion. X perc,eive,
that this official warn was Ra)ted the other day ip tho (}ham-
per of Commerce at Manchester, over which you so ably pre-
side, by Mr. George Sandars, to show that the complaints
made by yourself and others of the state of trade were not
well founded ; and I have no doubt that it will be quoted in
both Howes of Parliament for the same purpose. That official
document shows that a larger amount of British manufactures
was exported in the year ending January 5,11340, than in lhF
year ending January 5, 1839 • the i,PeTeasc-'
ttlillions PP the cleclaeed i'4l.l.4ll'shorlly pi nye, from
the'4ey'i;forlainent'tl -usldrii'ed,"k case, not of extending, bat
.de6liiiing trade antimann`faCture;" that (obSeryed the Right
Hon. Baronet) is erecisely.Whail have stated.
Mr. BAINES arose here amidst. cries"
made some nhservatio.na vklitch we r. heart in gailery,
4.R. VEV,I. :=.aid"that al lie had S ateirira, t gen-
leman, of' Thael patieit: apon the incNciao
cxpoi t§ undeftlid peculiar eirenniktances, ?N951: 2/. **At
ins trak. ' = '
6lr I have read his own words ! He (Sir
R. Peel), on the same ground, would be justified in arguing
from a diminished foreign trade, and he had seen an ine.reasvA
consumption at home. The foundation of the =4;•iiiningtAwas
J.

• •