The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-08 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

The part of last Thursday night's discussion on
the corn laws, which appears to have drawn most
attention within doors and without, was the dis-
course of Sir James Graham, who, however, did
not speak ex cathedra as a minister, a circumstance
much to be rejoiced at, but was in fact put forward
by the agricultural interest on this occasion ; and
we should be sorry to see the squirearchy of Eng-
land otherwise represented for such a purpose :than by
the author of Sir James Graham's speech. It was
really an indifferent speech—inconclusive, incon-
sistent, and characterised by one quality, which is
often resorted to by weak reasoners, in desperate
cases (we mean no offence)—it was unfair. Sir J.
Graham tells us of the dreadful consequences of a
free corn trade from the reduction of rents, the con-
version of inferior soils from tillage to other uses,
the ruin of the landed aristocracy, and the general
change of proprietors, to be produced by an inevi-
table fall of prices. Yet he admits-Ist, that Mr.
Hume's duty of 10s. per quarter would be in relation
to the duty which has really been paid during the last
six years (viz., 6s. Bd. per quarter) an excess of 3s. 4d.
2d. That, referring to the history of the coun-
try, from 1673 to 1700, the average price of wheat
was 535. ; from 1700 to 1735, years of restriction,
the mean price was about 375. ; irom 1766 to 1774,
eight years of free trade, and during full peace, the
average price was 50s. 10d. Now, with these facts
before the eyes of country gentlemen, are they to
be told, by the very person who has adduced them,
and almost in the same breath, that a fall of price,
a fall of rent, a cessation of tillage, and ruin to the
landed interest, must follow the return to that same
system of free trade which in the 17th and 18th
centuries was invariably attended by an increased
dearness of corn? Sir James Graham talks of cold
clay lands being thrown out of cultivation, or tilled
without a remuneration for labour, should a free
trade be established, to say nothing of the monstrous
discrepancy between the hon. baronet's historical pre-
mises and his hypothetical conclusion on this part of
the subject. We are told, on the authority of an
able pamphlet quoted yesterday, that the im-
provements in (green-crop) culture, in draining, &c.,
which have been found applicable to soils of almost
every other description but the stiff cold clays,
have so reduced the value of the latter kind of lands
as to render them almost incapable of paying any
rent whatsoever for tillage purposes, and have sug-
gested to many intelligent persons the expediency of
turning them to timber, pasturage, etc., without re-
gard to the question of free trade, or continued duties.
Moreover, it is obvious that as manufactures increase,
immense portions of land, well circumstanced as to
convenience of situation, facility of carriage, etc.,
apart from all estimate of its agricultural value,
will be demanded for the erection and accommoda-
tion, not merely of buildings and works for com-
mercial objects, but for the country habitations and
their appendages of a new race of capitalists, large
and small, as well as for the pasturage of cattle requi-
site for the supply of animal food to a daily enlarging
population. But Sir James Graham has been so far
driven into a corner, that in one instance he saw no
other means of extricating himself than by a blind'
and headlong rush against this paper, and one of the
grossest misrepresentations of an argument employed
by us that we have ever seen resorted to in the heat of
political controversy. In labouring to prove the per-
nicious effects of Mr. Hume's proposal, if agreed to,
he referred to the following passage in a leading ar-
ticle of ours, where we deprecated some weeks ago a
fixed duty on corn :--" As to a fixed' duty, it is
neither more nor less than a fixed evil ; a fixed dis-
couragement of manufactures ; a fixed robbery of the
consumer by the producer ; a fixed bounty upon foreign
industry, to the detriment of British ; a fixed aggrava-
tion of the burden of the poor laws ; a fixed monopoly of
subsistence against the hungry multitude." Now, if the
context of the article were not too long for insertion,
it would be clear that it was as compared with a per-
fect free trade in corn, not with a fluctuating duty on the
article, we spoke with so much emphasis against the imposi-
tion of a fixed duty. Our position has ever been, that the
worst of all evils connected with this question is a state of
corn taxation like the present—aggravating a burden in itself
unjust, by every species of uncertainty, and by exposure to
endless deception; that the next (though an inferior) evil
would be a fixed and definite impost ; but that the only sound
and strictly unexceptionable measure would be one which
established an entire freedom of trade. It was impossible for
Sir J. Graham, had he attended to the drift of our observa

tions in the article alluded to—viz., that on Mr. Buller's
letter to his constituents—to have fallen into such a
mistake as that which we have here expounded; but

everything is a God-send to gentlemen in distress.
To put our meaning beyond all cavil, we shall here quote a
sentence from the Times of last Thursday morning, where, an-
ticipating the object of Mr. Hurae's motion, we let it be clearly
understood, that " any duty, however definite, however mode.

rate, we held to be a mere compromise with difficulties,—that
our first desire would be to exempt all descriptions of human
sustenance from every kind of fixed burden, and therefore that

tha reduction" (to express our meaning clearly we ought

to tiave said partial diminution) "of such burdens ranked

with us only second in expediency." In comparison, we
repeat, with the present system of duties, a fixed duty,
provided it were moderate, would be a benefit rather

than an evil ; but Mr.-Hume's tax of 10s. per quarter
seems to us to be by one-half too high for anything like a fair

compromise with the landed interest.

A curious disclosure

appears to have been made last night, as to the views either of
the government or of some leading member of it, with regard
to the corn question. Lord Darlington declared that he had
withdrawn an amendment which he meditated, in consequence
of a written request from a high quarter in the cabinet, that he

would not divide the landed interest, but support a direct nega_

tive of Mr. Hume's motion, in which they all might agree, that

the motion might be defeated by as large a majority as possible.
Mr. Poulett Thomson denied that there was any such object

entertained by the ministry as a body, because he, the holder
of an official station, voted against it—a fact which gives
_ _

to the occurrence stated by Lord Darlington a somewhat

whimsical appearance.

We wonder is the old Tory

farce of the " open" Catholic question about to be re.

xfved? The result however was, that, whether ministers
Fished it or not, a majority of something more than two to one

proclaimed the strength of the landed interest. If this great

majority was obtained through the arguments in Sir James
Graham's speea'n, we must suppose the landlords the most self-

denying body in the world, for the right hon. baronet laboured
to prove that prices were highest when trade was free. We

e3nfess we are puzzled to understand how Sir James and his

assenting majority reasoned themselves into a vote by a process

which seemed to lead to a directly opposite conclusion. It is
not, however, the first time that country gentlemen have corn-

witted this sort of error, as anybody will remember who has

read the play of "Sir Francis Wronghead's Journey to London."
We rejoice to find that some of the closest friends and adhe-

rents of Ministers showed by their votes, that they had not

forgot their logic nor their independence. Among these were

Messrs Ellice, Littleton, P. Thomson, Vernon Smith, C. Wood,
_ _ _ _

W. Brougham, Labouchere, Colonel Fox, and Lords Duncan:

non and Howick.—Times.