The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-01 00:00:00

in the House
the
Board of
Mr. BAINES was anxious to make a few observations in
reply to a remark made by Lord Ashburton,
of Lords last night, on the subject theof Corn laws.
Lord Ashburton was the President of 1835,
Trade under Sir Robert Peel in
formerly, as Mr. Aterander Baring, and was
connected
with one of the greatest inercanti!e houses in this
and he night have been supposed to have perseveurendtr
those more enlightened opinions which he formerly held
on the subject. Lord Ashburton ryas reported to have said
last night in the House of Lords that " Manufactures had
hardly cvcr been in such a sound state as they were about
two years antecedent to the present period, and yet the
Corn-lass were in existence. Nothing could prevent a
, counry from havin vicissitudes of seasons, but hew could
it bet raid that Corn-g laws prevented corn from being ob

tained in time of need, when it was known that no less than
three millions were brought in last }ear? That was an
answer to those who said that in a time of distress corn was
not to be found. Whenever the subject ceme properly be-
fore the House, he should be prepared to show that this
country suffered less from the fluctuations in the
price of grain, which were inherent in the nature of
trade, and could be prevented by no law, than most
parts of the Continent, and particularly less than
France, where the fluctuations had be :n very great."
Before he replied to that extraordinary doctrine, he would
observe that it had been stated by several writers, but by
none more ably than Mi. James Wilson, the author of a
valuable Treatise on the Influence of the Corn-laws, pub-
lished last year, that fluctuation was one of the most seri-
ous evils to which the trade of any country could be ex-
posed, but more especially fluctuation in the price of the
chief necessary of life, and that that fluctuation more than
counterbalanced any benefit which the agriculturists them-
selves derived from the Corn-laws. Lord Ashburton
felt that fluctuation was a great evil, but attempted
to show that the fluctuations in the price of corn
in this country were not so great as the fluc-
tuate ,ns which existed in other countries in Europe,
and that they were not so great as existed in
the price of other articles of produce and consumption.
The fluctuations in this country were very great. The
average price for wheat in 1539 was 70s. 6d., while the
average for 1835 was 395. 4d., being a difference of 79 per
cent. upon the average for the whole year. Had he taken
certain parts of the years he could have shown that the
difference on many occasions was more than 100 per cent.
Even in late periods that difference was as great—in Ja-
nuary, 1838, the price of wheat was 535., while in twelve
months, in January, 1839, it was 795., being in that short
period a difference of 46 per cent. He admitted that there
were greater fluctuations in foreign countries than
in England—he admitted that to the Noble Lord.
According to the circular of Messrs. Sturge in 1838
the average price was 565. to 60i., while according to the
Report of Dr. Bowring in 1834 and 1836, the average
price was 275. 6d., being a difference of mere than 100
per cent.—so far, Lord Ashburton was perfectly right.
Again in Hamburgh, in 1835, the price of wheat was 88
marks per last, and in 1838 the price was 160 marks per
last ; so that this seemed to bear out the assertion of Lord
Ashburton, But what was the cause of all these great
fluctuations ?—why the English Corn-laws.—(Cheers.)
it was not the fluctuation of seasons, or demand, or in the
consumption of those countries, but purely in consequence
of the variations in the demand for the consumption of
Eegland.—(Cheers.) The time of low prices abroad was
exactly the time when England imported nothing. ( Cheers. )
In 1835 Hamburg exported only 3,573 lasts, that was the
season of low prices abroad. In 1538 the price was
doubled, and the quantity exported was 24,344 lasts.—
( Hear, hear.) That was at Hamburg alone, and it was
the same in other places abounding in wheat. In 1835
the imports of wheat were 46,560 quarters, but in 1833 the
quantity amounted to 1,000,240 quarters, and in 1839 it
was 2,000,638 quarters.—( Elear, hear.) These being the
facts was it to be wondered at that there should be fluctu-
ations abroad ?—( Cheers.) Now, were these fluctuations
in foreign countries to be quoted as an apology for the
English Corn-laws? Were they not rather a double con-
demnation of them.—(Cheers.) They were the fruit of
those very laws of which they complained. Lord Ash-
burton was taking advantage of his own wrong, which
was against all principle—he was quoting the fluctuations
caused in foreign countries by our Corn.laws, in order to
justify the fluctuations in England. Our Corn-laws were
the great cause—the only cause—of the great fluctuations
which had taken place in Hamburgh and Dantzic. Mr.
Wilson bad in his pamphlet well laid down three reasons
why there should be less fluctuation in the price of the
great staple commodity, wheat ; first, the produce of wheat
per acre, according to the quantity of land cultivated was
greater than any other produce whatever—it was remark-
ably hardy—it stood the cold of winter, and the heat of
summer, thereby showing forth the goodness of God.
Secondly, from the same cause—the hardiness of the plant
—it was possible to grow it in almost every country and
every climate—every country on the Continent as well as
in England, and in Africa and America—so that we could
receive a supply of wheat from enough of places in case of
need. But there was a third cause, which had not been so fully
and prominently brought forward as the others. It was
the uniformity of consumption and demand, for it was an
article of which a man would only buy enough ; he would
waste none, nor could they consume more than a certain
quantity. There were many articles, such as cotton, to-
bacca, &c., of which the necessity of growth or variation of
supply were greater and more precarious than the article
of wheat. In the first place, they were more precarious
in Supply ; but in the next place, these articles were much
less necessary than that of food; they were affected by
fashion and other causes, and the necessity occurring for
them was therefore by no means so steady as that for the
supply of wheat. Therefore there were the two causes of
fluctuation in supply of the article, and demand of the ar-
ticle, which were the double cause of the fluctuation of
price ; and just in the same way the steadiness
of demand for the article, and of its consumption,
were the double causes of producing a steadiness
of price ; and that article, in which, above all others in the
world, there ought to be, and would be, in case of free trade,
the least variation, was in consequence of the operation of
these laws the most fluctuating. But Lord Ashburton
said, " Nothing can prevent the country having vicissitudes
in seasons." Most undoubtedly not 1 But was not this
the strongest reason in the world for opening the ports,
and having perfect freedom for the importation of corn?
Ile would now just allude to the familiar principle of in-
surance. The effect of a man's insuring his life and pro-
perty was, as hail been beautifully expressed, that of
spreading the amount of private hardship, calamity, and
suffering over the whole community, so that it was scarcely
felt by any—this very principle of insurance might be ap-
plied to the present subject, just as insurance by affecting
a good many persons to a slight amount, had the effect of
preventing the man insured from being ruined by spread-
ing Isis loss over a great number, so the sufferings of a
particular country, from the vicisitudes of the seasons could
be spread over the whole world, and would be lessened
to all in proportion as it was spread over
the widest extent of country. He would allude to one
other observation Lord Ashburton had made in the same
speech. He said, " Manufactures had hardly ever been
in such a sound state as about two years antecedent to Ow
present period, and yet the Corn-laws were in existence."
Yes ; but what was the price of corn ? The price of corn
in 1935 was 3gs. 4d., and in 1836 but a few shillings
higher. Perceive, therefore, how the low price of corn
tended to what Lord Ashburton admitted to be the soundest
state in which he had ever known a manufacturing country.
According to Lord Ashburton, the lower the price
of corn the sounder the state of manufactures. What,
then, became of the Corn-laws, the object of which
was avowedly to raise the price of corn ? Lord Ash-
burton said twenty-five years ago he had been opposed
to the Corn-laws, but it was less than half that period since
Mr. Baring(now Lord Ashburton)made the folowing brief,
but most important and valuable speech (April 25,
1828), on the motion of Mr. Grant for the
House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole
House to consider the Corn-laws, with reading which he
would conclude his observations:—" On the motion that
the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. Baring (now Lord
Ashburton) said he entirely agreed with the Right Hon.
Member for Louth, that nothing could be more idle than the
perpetual references made in that House to the average
prices of wheat at various foreign ports. It was
ridiculous to make references of this kind, when they
had just opposite to them, as it were, and had had
for the last century, a port, Rotterdam, which had
always been, as a corn port, a free one. At that port,
the price usually varied from 30a. to 345. ; the same would
be the price in the port of London if the Thames were
equally free ; and it should be recollected, that this com-
parison was not without its appplication ; fur the provinces
of Holland composed a country of no trifling consumption
of corn. They were still populous, and had once been ex-
ti ernely opulent and powerful as a manufacturing nation ;
nor let lion. Gentlemen ever forget that from that opu-
lence and power they had declined, absolutely, from
levying enormous duties upon the corn consumed by
their subjects. The same fate resulting from the
same cause as irresistibly awaited this country as one day
succeeded another. As to the talk about high prices, the
danger of our present system arose, not front positive, but
relative prices. He owned that he was amazed at the
course which so many gentlemen had pursued upon this
question. How was it possible that any men, having the
powers of reasoning or reflection, could come down to that
house day after day, and talk about protection to corn,
protection to wool, protection to oak bark—the differ-
ence, msanwhile, in she price of bread between Great
Britain and the nations o' the Continent being as
the difference in favour of the latter between 255. and 645.?
How was it po-sible that they should expect we could g o
on exporting manufactures, as we now did, to the amount of
between fifty and sixty millions a-year, there being this fright-
ful disproportion between the corn among ourselves and our
continental neighbours ? Heartily did he wish that some man
among them, with honesty in his heart, would come down
and tell them plainly it was their duty to consider, not
how they might get in their own proper rents for that
particular year or so, but how the country was to subsist
with its establishments for the next fifty years. But, on
the contrary, he declared with pain, that whenever the
corn Tiestion came on for discussion, it was argued by
them on the most selfish and narrow minded principles that
army Legislature ever condescended to listen to. lie was
' himself a landed proprietor : but he disdained to seek pro-
tection for his interests in that capacity, by means which,
being intended for the benefit of one class of the commu-
nity, must ono day crush them all."
Mr. MORRIS thought the Delegates were much indebted
to Mr. Baines for the speech they had just heard, lie
wished, however, that Mr. Baines should also explain the
fluctuations in corn in France alluded to by Lord Ashbur-
ton. The allusions to the other countries of Europe had,
lie thought, been completely answered.
Mr. BAINES thought the case of France might be easily
explained. The fact was, that France had already Corn-
laws almost a: bad as those of England.
Mr. ASHWORTH theta rose for the purpose of moving a
Committee which would take into its consideration the best
not
means of raising those
oVov',o,Alidct
lhib,ett necessaryhley coui(t furCommittee
meeting their expenses,
proeceil in their exertions.
M; E Alsrhll=:vt'met"ltirei gentlemen
'
g Mr. G. Wilson lof f \lll°l.
ton, Mr. J. Tennant of
(31as''Ll'eds, Mr. Lawrence 1-134-
sil,liciieuliiiiolrouagpiiiirc..eletdo,rcNoinasnicsthiensgt
Manchester,
L. follow.'❑.
cheater, ,Mr. H. Stanfield of
Nicholson, and
onan aS
a fufrr' ":
Ni worth‘ nle 1
co
.f
aLiverpool,il CommitteeNi .
amount of p-omised support trout each ass°.
day next, the
ciation.
Mr. Dicesoe seconded the motion.
d that the eand above I rR.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN said that they %MC undoubtedly much
indebted to Mr. Baines for his refutation of the speech of
Lord Ashburton, who was formerly a violent opponent of
the Corn-laws. The fact, however, was that Lord Ash-
burton had been celebrated for speaking one way and
voting the other—(llear hear,
and laughter)—and he
hoped that might be the case on the Corn-law quest ion,
awl that they might have the benefit of his vote, as they
had not his :,peech in their favour.—( llear.)
Mr. CoATEs said that it had been erroneously assumed
that the working-classes were opposed to agitation in