The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-07 00:00:00

conclusive of the question of the corn latta.—(Hear, hear)
.-and he would, therefore, give his cordial good wishes
and his vote for the bon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. CLAY bad listened with great attention to the
statement of the right hon. baronet opposite, and bad
detected many fallacies in the line of argument by which
he had attempted to support his position.—(Cheers.) He
understood those cheers, and acknowledged they were
somewhat discouraging to him in his outset of a speech in
advocacy of a free trade in corn. He was of opinion that
ever since the resumption of cash payments, the currency
of the kingdom had been much more plentiful than it was
even during the greatest rage of high prices ; and a mea-
sure which would go to raise prices generally, in conse-
quence of the alteration in the monetary standard, might
be fairly recommended by those who wished to trust to a
depreciated currency; but be could not conceive any
excuse why a partial tax should be laid on a commodity
so important as food to the community at large, and more
particularly to the poorer classes—a tax which, it must
be borne in mind, was no nominal tax, but a real bona
fide tax levied in a gold standard of currency, and bene-
ficial to one particular class, to the injury of all the other
industrious classes, who were compelled to bear that bur-
den which the agriculturists had adroitly shifted on to
their shoulders. The corn laws not only increased the
price of food, but they also depreciated the value of all
the other products of manufacture throughout the em-
pire. There was no axiom so thoroughly established, as
that which asserted that in all cases where any portion
of manufactured goods was exported out of the country
which produced them, the price which was obtained
for that surplus was that by which the whole of
the remainder was regulated, and consequently the British
manufacturer suffered, by being obliged to take a lower
price for his surplus commodity or exported goods in con-
sequence of not being able to exchange it against the pro-
duce of the foreigner who offered corn, which depreciated
price, governed the price at bona?, and consequently inflicted
a tenfold evil. Was it not monstrous that the agricultural
classes should seek to perpetuate a law by which the price
of their produce was raised at the expense of every other of
the national products, which were depreciated to a much
greater extent than theirs was benefited ? When hon.
members talked of the necessity of affording protection to
agriculture, did they not perceive that the fund out of
which the price of this protection was paid was the sto-
ried] of every poor manufacturer in the kingdom ?
(Hear, and loud cries of " Question.") He was not
aware that he was in the habit of trespassing on the time
of the house very often, but the present was a question of
very great importance, and of peculiar interest to the
working classes, and he entreated their forbearance. Tie
right hon. baronet, the member for Tamwortb, on a
former occasion, warned the house that is their proceed-
ings upon this matter they took every precaution to bar
the entry of a suspicion in the people's minds that
they were nut legislating for their own pockets. Now
let him ask, were not the corn laws a proof that
they had wholly neglected the warning of the right hon.
baronet, for were not those laws oppressive to a degree
upon the people, who came, year after year, with cries for
relief, to which no attention was paid? Did they hesi-
tate to legislate on any other subject, whatever its im
portance, and would they obstinately refuse to amend the
laws relating to one of the most important considerations
to the people—namely, their bread ? Would they con-
tinue, as they had done, to approach that matter with a
degree of elution which would bear him out in saying,
that there was an individual repugnance to consider the
question ?—(The hon. member was very imperfectly
heard.) There never was an act of greater injustice
committed by any legislature than the adoption of a
system of free trade in every other species of commerce
except that of agricultural produce.—(Hear.) Why
allow free trade to extend to manufactures and not to the
necessaries of life ?—(Hear.) The manufacturing and
trading classes were lett unprotected, while the corn laws
protected the agricultural interest. The trading interest
in particular was placed on the most unfair footing. The
most necessary article of shipbuilding, and, above all
the food of our sailors, were taxed, while other na-
tions exempt from those taxes had every advantage
in competing with us.—(Hear, hear.) He did not
blame the statesmen who introduced the free-trade
system ; it was no fault of his that it did not extend
to corn ; for there was every reason for believing that he
was only prevented from doing so from the impossibility
which he saw of carrying such a measure into effect.
These laws were unjust, hut they were still more impolitic.
In reply to one of the arguments of the right hon. baronet,
he would only ask how much the landed interest owed to
commerce? In what country were landholders in such
an enviable situation as in England ? What other nobles
could compete with the nobles of this country in comfort,
in wealth, and splendour? And to what did they owe
all these? He would tell them to our commercial
prosperity.—(Hear.) Our nobles now could sell land for
as much the rood as their forefathers paid for the acre.
The value of land had, in fact, been quadrupled by im-
provements in agriculture, by draining, and by the demand
for agricultural produce; and long might they enjoy their
prosperity. Our capital and skill—our industry, intelli-
gence, and the sacredness of property, he hoped, would
long continue. " All these things are for us"—all these
bad caused England to triumph ; but he would ask the
country gentlemen to read the report of the commit-
tee appointed to inquire into the state of trade and
manufactures, and they would find that, notwithstand-
ing all our advantages, our trade now trembles in
the balance. It was in danger from the progress
made in manufactures in America, in France, in the pro-
aomces on the banks of the Rhine, in Switandand, and
Prussia.—(Hear.) Our manufacturers of cotton goods
And hardwares had there found rivals; and our prohi-
bitive corn laws had not only created rivals, but hostile
parties. They hated us for this monopoly, and but for
that would willingly take our goods in exchange for their
corn. He would venture, therefore, respectfully to warn
the aristocracy of their perilous state; he would call on
the landholders to desist from persevering in a line of
policy which was attended with deadly and imminent
danger. When capital had left our shores, millions of
uramployed and starving men would conic to them for sub•
a :tepee, for the land alone could give them relief. Capital
an tett be carried out of the country, but the landlords
were bound to the soil. The argument of the right hon.
b ronet relative to the prohibitory system was founded in
fallacy. The greatest despots—Napoleon himself—in the
nlenitude of his power—could not carry into effect a sys-
aam of that sort against the wishes of the people. He
mill not close the continent against us ; and could we
then expect to exclude the produce of the continent from
this country ? The right hon. baronet bad talked of the
`usury which the abolition of the corn laws would do to
Ireland ; but did not the same rule apply to Poland?
and of Poland could not export her grain, could she
juy our goods ?—(Hear, hear.) The argument of
the right bon. baronet relative to the connection between
the price of corn and the state of the agricultural labourer
was rot a little extraordinary. He said in proportion as
grain fell in price, the comforts of the labourer mere
diminished. Now since 1814 the price of grain had
fsllen nearly one half, yet the condition of the labourer bad
rat:.'er been improved than deteriorwed. He could not, in
truth, understand that logic by which it was attempted to
prove that the distress of the agricultural labourer was he
proportion to the cheapness of agricultural produce. The
reverse was the truth. Ile foresaw prosperity and con
tentment from the abolition of the law. By its con-
tinuance misery and discontent would ensue ; and if for
want of foresight on the part of the landed interest, and
from their power in that house, they should refuse to re-
peal the monopoly, they might depend on it the tepee]
would be demanded at another time in louder tones, and
by parties excited by stronger feelings. The present mo-
ment was favourable for the change. The landed interest
would get better terms now than they could get if the
remedy were delayed. The longer the delay, as in the
case of the Catholic Relief Biil and the Reform Bill, the
greater was the demand. That was invariably the case
when the people were debarred front their rights. If the
landhalere were wise they would repeal the law, and then
they might look forward to a long era of prosperity. If they
a;efused, he could see only a storm gathering in the politi_
„cal horizon, which would sweep away nut only the corn
bye, but other laws and institutions in which they were
eltealy ieterested. Never had any lauded aristocracy en-
joyed so long power, splendour, and security; die game had
now become an important one, arid be hoped they would
rPty it wisely.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. E. BULLER next addressed the house, hut owing
to the noise, and the manner in which he spoke, he was
very imperfectly heard. He was understood to say that
the agricultural interest was labouring under distress, but
the way to remedy that was not to create a monopoly in
corn. The aristocracy and the landowners had passed the
corn laws for the purpose of getting a remunerating price,
but what was the result ? Ever since the Corn Bill had
passed, grain bad been falling. It had fallen from 80e.
the quarter to 705., then to 665., and afterwards Co 60.. ;
and at the present time it was 48s. It was absurd to
attempt to make this country independent of foreign
countries. It was advantageous for one country to be
dependent on another. Mutual wants and mutual syrnpa-
..,,, ‘ hisa 'were created by commerce, and mutual benefits
mimed. —lawn impossible, in fact, for one country to be
indeptiodet.
.6f another, and more particularly in the
ft-, ••-• attickotT cornalwithout the greatest injury and suffering.
.At 00 time grain would be superabundant, at another
4 . 7