The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

(Hear, hear.) Now he would ask, would the cha::ee of
enlightening ;he country be so great after the determine
tion of Pariiamont was known on the subject ?—( Cries of
'6 Yes, yes.") His opinion was very different. He would
allow that the feeling of passion among the pec,ple--the
feeling of r, Bret and desperaton, if he might use such
terms—might be greater at the moment, hut it was
trlt that kind of passionate fey iig on which they
ought to rely. The a lvocates of free trade ought to ap-
peal to the reasoning of the people, and his opinion was
that if Mr. Villiers' motion were postponed till after Eas-
ter, and the Delegates in the meantime returned to their
constituents and agitated the country, there would be a
much better chance of the motion then being carried than if
it were brought on this week. Another thing to which they
ought to look was the state of parties. The present Mi-
nisters were not certain of continuing in office three weeks,
and when parties were so nicely balanced they ought not
to be too precipitate, but endeavour to find out which
would offer the highest prize.—( Hear, hear.) He begged
pardon for obtruding his sentiments on the meeting, but he
should deeply lament if they persevered in their present

determination. -
_
The CHAIRMAN said the Delegates were greatly obliged
to Mr. Ilindley for the expression of his opinion, but this
subject was very fully (Lseussed by the Delegates last
evening, and there was scarcely a dissentient voice as to
the propriety of having the question brought on imme-
diately.—( Hear, hear, hear.) A note had been re-
ceived from Mr. Villiers, in which he stated that he would
be able to bring the motion on to-morrow, and that his
opinion was that it ought not to be further delayed.--
( Hear, hear. )
LORD ASHBURTON'S 'MISTAKES.
Mr. BAINES was anxious to make a few observations in
reply to a remark made by Lord Ashburton, in the House
of Lords last night, on the subject of the Corn-laws.
Lord Ashburton was the Pres dent of the Board cf
Trade under Sir Robert Peel in 1835, and wal

formerly, as Mr. Alexander Baring, connected
with one of the greatest mercantile houses in this country,
and he might have been supposed to have persevered in
those more enlightened opinions which he formerly held
on the subject. Lord Ashburton ;vas reported to have said
last night in the House of Lords that " Manufactures had
hardly ever been in such a sout,d state as they were about
two years antecedent to the present period, and yet the
Corn-laws were in existence. Nothing could prevent a

country from having vicissitudes of seasons, but how could
it be laid that Corn-laws prevented corn from being ob-
tained in time of need, when it was known that no less than

hree millions were brought in last 3 ear ? That was an

ans wer to those who said that in a time of distress corn WAS

not to be found. Whenever the subject came 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 bean 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 AIL James Wilson, the author of a
valuable Treatise on the Influence of the Corn-laws, pub-

dished last year, that fluctuation was one of the most seri-
cus 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 were not so great
as the fluctuations 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 1839 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 79a., being in that short
period a difference of 48 per cent. He admitted that there
were greater fluctuations in foreign countries than
in England—he admit el that to the Noble Lord.
According to the circular of Messrs. Sturge in 1838
the average price was 565. to 605., 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.—(Cbeers.)
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
England.—( 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 1838 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 1838 the
quantity amounted to 1,000,240 quarters, and in 1839 it
was 2,000,638 quarters.—( Hear, 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 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 had 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
acre,rtdh
an
tr ding to the quantity of land cultivated was
anyat otherood th e produceeol
d o
fwinter,
ad wasth e
heremark-
ablyat of
per
greater
ha
to
oa ;Tn.:
grow
Igve a
oft forth
almostt
htl
em h agr
every
voi
ned
ernya es scosof
country
ter
ypGlaoando
and
s—Suemi et em‘nvedarlgy ,
possiblet fromliereb t
thereby
es
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-
bacce, &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 ougt 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
io 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?
He 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 had 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 his 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 the
present period, and yet the Corn-laws were in existence."
Yes ; but what was the price of corn? The price of corn
in 1835 was 395. 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 rise 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 following 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 :—" Oa the motion that
the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. Baring (now Lord
Ashburton) said he entirely agreed with the Right lion.
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, a free one. At that port,
the price usually varied from :30s. 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 corn.
parison was not without its appplication ; for the provinces
of Holland composed a country of no trifling consumption
of corn. They were still populous, and had once been ex-
it opulent and powerful as a manufacturing nation ;
nor let Hon, 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 from 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, acd talk about protection to corn,
protection to wool, protection to oak bark—the differ_
ence, meanwhile, in the price of breat between Great
Britain and the nations of the Continent being as
the difference in favour of the latter between 255. and 645. ?
How was it possible that they should expect we could go
on exporting manufactures, as we now did, to the amount of
between fifty and sixty millions a-year, there being this fright-