The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-10 00:00:00

sere nearly on a level with the foreign than it is at
aresent mast go to is.:iiiree the extension of our
foreign commerce; and whether that be accom-
plished by a rise of price abroad, or by a fall at
home, or, as is most natural to look for, by both
simultaneously, so far as concerns the manufacturer
merely, it matters very little. What he now suf-
fers from, is the excessive difference of price; what
he wants is equality, or at least approximation; in
it her case he will be sure to undersell his foreign
rivals, but in the former more extensively of course.
We do not deny that it is an important question for
the landlords, whether the increase of our exports is
to result from a rise abroad, or a decline in the va-
lue of home produce. Our ofrn impression is, that
both immediately and finally the improved success
of British mdnufectures will be owing to a consider-
able rise in the price of foreign corn. With regard
o the conduct of this last debate, and the speakers in
it, there is little to be remarked of any value to the
seneral question. Mr. Poulett Thomson's was trot
only the best speech delivered on either side, but
may rank among the ablest which have at any time
been produced upon the subject of the corn laws;
nor can the independent spirit with which the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, Messrs. Ethics.,
Littleton, Vernon Smith, and Lords Duncannon and
Howick, acted in opposition to the avowed views of
the Cabinet, fail to be appreciated by their constitu-
ents and the country. There are other gentlemen,
whom we do hot refer to or deem worth consider-
ing, for the sake of their arguments; but they have
been cited and applauded as authority upon this
question, just as Sir James Graham was so re-
garded, only to be the more effectually and sig-
nally demolished by Mr. Poulett Thomson. Mr.
Alexander Baring is the personage to whom we
now allude. His speech, in the course of the
late discussion, was like many others from the same
quarter, and we do not deem it at all necessary
to deal with his somewhat excursive arguments
in support of that principle of corn-law mono-
poly, which, with a consistency eminently charac-
teristic of Mr. Baring, he opposed tooth and nail
in former instances. In the year 1815 Mr. Baring
was a merchant, and wore the garb of a liberal po-
litician. He is now a landlord representative of an
agricultural county, and with his recent speech in
their recollections, our readers may estimate without
much trouble the consideration which may be dire,
not to the reasonings, but to the authority of that
hon. gentleman, when we quote (with the least im.
peachment of his motives) the following passage
from a speech which he delivered on the 17th of
February, 1815, on the state of the Corn Laws:—
" All that had been advanced on this point he felt as
being a mere excuse for keeping up the present high
rents. He contended it was impossible for any evi-
dence to show more clearly than the evidence before
Parliament had shown, that that artificial support of
the agriculture of the country which had been called
for would be improper. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Western) had said this country could grow suffi-
cient corn for its consumption. That the progress
of agriculture had increased its produce he did not
doubt, and he could easily believe that it might be
increased still more ; but be doubted very much if
it could ever be made to furnish a permanent supply
equal to the consumption of its increasing populs-
ton. If lands would riot produce corn without
greater sums being expended on them than the corn
was worth, they might be made to furnish a supply
which would make us purchase our bread at ls. Gd.
the loaf, when,if we exerted our industry on that same
land to raise that which was congenial to its soil, by
exchanging its produce against that cf the corn lands
of other countries, we might get our loaf for Is.
The whole mass of the country ought not to be
compelled to pay a high price for bread, that the
experiment of cultivating barren lands might be
tried. In nothing were the dispensations of Pro-
vidence more admirable than in the care displayed,
that the different soils of different countries should
yield productions which might be advantageously
exchanged for each other; it was much better then
that we should employ ourselves in raising that
which we might so dispose of, instead of labouring
to produce that which other lands were destined to
supply. The right honourable gentleman had ad-
mined this in other cases, but not with respect
to corn. On this subject he had said, what could
we do if, having thus made ourselves dependent
on another country, that country in the day of
our greatest need, should close her ports against
us? He would answer, experience had shown
that a country could never be starved. Holland
was dependent on other countries for a supply of
corn, and its price was and almost ever had been
the average price of Europe. But then the danger
of depending upon France for a supply had been
strongly urged.. France, excepting in years of ex-
traordinary plenty like the present, would send but
little corn to this country. Our greatest supplies.
would be likely to be derived from the countries
bordering on the Baltic. He put it to the earn.
mittee, in opposition to what had been said of the
danger of depending on foreign countries for our
corn, if it could be anticipated that ever a period
of greater difficulty would arrive than that which
had occurred during the reign of Bonapartb, yet
even while he was in power, in spite of his greatest
hostility, more corn (three times over) had been
imported into this country than ever had been be-
fore, within the same time, since the year 1697
more, indeed, than at any period of our history.
To suppose any danger of this sort was to suppose,
u thing wholly out of the question. He felt it his
duty to state this, not from any ambition of pepu,
lathy (about which he was as careless as any man
in that house), but from a sense that he owed it to
the country." Times.
We have a few observations to offer on the con-
duct of the Government on Friday night last On the
question of the corn laws—lst, To the landowner;
2dly, To the manufacturer; and 3dly, To the sup-
porters of the Government. Lord Grey's Govern-
ment have endeavoured to blind the landowner, by
making it appear that the Cabinet are determined to
support the landed interest, because the Cabinet
voted against Mr. Hume. The landed interest will
judge of the real value of this support by the fact,
first, that the Government allowed the question to
be an open question; secondly, that the Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons gave his
vote after such a fashion as will allow of his taking the
opposite side the moment it may be convenient for
him to do so—that is, he voted against Mr. Hume,
stating that he agreed with the principle of his mo-
tion; thirdly, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs did
tire same thing. These gentlemen, therefore, if the
question come before the House of Commons again
this session, may. if the landed interest are then to
be thrown over, vote with Mr. Hume by means of
the qualification they gave to their vote on Friday
night; but in the meantime the landed interest see
to be deceived into supporting the government, and
thus will Lord Althorp's object be gained, There-
fore we say to the landed interest, be not deceived
in supposing that the government mean to uphold
your interests. To the manufacturer we would say,
remember that your advocates, Mr. Hume and Mr.
Poulett Thomson, bo.h ted you, that all the fine
talk of cheap bread, at the hustings, resolves itself
into this—that your loaf will not be one farthing
cheaper than it is now, if the corn laws are repealed!
Therefore we say to the manufacturer, when that
portion of the government who supported Mr.
Hume—namely, all those having manufacturing
constituents—come before you again, remember
this, and propose some test to the honourable gen-
tlemen that will really benefit you in some was,
more proximately than the establishing of Mr.
who have
we in
would t i e
P. Thomson's abstract principle. To those
honourable members
tine government
say, remember that when the places of the Minis.
tern depend on any vote, then there is no such
thing as an open question, then you are dragged
through the mire, and told next day at Downing-
habit of supporting
street that unless you give up your own judgment
arid give a general support to the Government,
they cannot go on; but remember also that Minis-
ters have such things as open questions for them.