The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-20 00:00:00

in corn was free, we were an exporting country ;
and that in those periods when the greatest tempta-
tions existed to the foreign grower by the high prices
which sometimes existed here, such as 100 s. the
quarter, and sometimes 110 s. and 1205., the quantity
of corn imported bore no proportion to that ex-
ported. Taking 20 years from 1796 to 1815 in-
clusive, our whole export of corn amounted to
9,622,000 quarters, and the import in the same
period was not more than 481,135 quarters. If,
then, we had any fears of the excess of foreign
im-
port, that was the period when it might have been
made with the greatest ease. It was true that we
were at war during that period.—(Hear.)—He un-
derstood what was meant by that cry of " hear,"
but Hon. Members would remember, that when the
war was at its height, and even when an attempt
was made by the Berlin and Milan decrees to ex-
clude us from the trade of the continent, we received
a large supply of corn. The facts he had men.
tioned afforded a proof that we need have ea fear
from an open trade in corn. The Hon. Member
then went on to contend that the operation of the
corn law was to limit the exertions of the manu-
facturer, by raising the price of provisions at home,
and thus rendering him less able to compete with
those who were opposed to him in the foreign
market. He regretted that on this important part
of the case he should have to address so thin an at-
tendance of Members, and that the Treasury bench
was not graced with the presence of those whose
duty it was to be there. [There were at this time
(seven o'clock) not more than about forty Members
present, and the only Minister we saw in his place
was the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who
sat almost alone on the Treasury bench.] He then
went on to show, that what prevented the employ-
ment of the million of men, women, and children, for
there were that many of the working classes now
out of work,—was the present state of the corn
laws. If those laws did not exist, the poor
labouring manufacturer could exchange the produce
of his industry for corn for the support of his
family. He was allowed to bring in silk or claret,
or other articles; but he was prevented from intro-
ducing the (to him) most important article of corn.
It was said by one Hon. Member, that coin was
sold in some parts in Europe at 255., while here it
was 755. the quarter, and that the opening of the
earn trade under such circumstances would ruin the
English agriculturist. Now, supposing the first
part of the statement to be correct, it afforded an
additional reason for altering the present system;
for in proportion as the difference of price was great
here as compared with that on the Continent, so
must he the oppression on the British manufacturer.
—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member then went
into several statements of the price of creel in
Dantzic, Biscay, Hamhurgh, Holland, and Bora-
deaux, at several periods, to show that while the
trade in corn was free, the difference of prices in
those places, as compared with what they were in
England in the same periods, was small, and by no
means calculated to excite any alarm in the minds
of British agriculturists. He contended that if our
system of corn laws were altered, the price of corn
on the Continent would be equalized by the price
of corn in England ; and thus the English price
would be the average price of the world, deducting
the charge for insurance and for freight. He had
shown that for 120 years the price of corn in Eng-
land and the price of corn on the Continent had never
varied more than the price of transit between England
and the Continent. What was the case now? In
1826, the price of corn was 575. 3d. in England, and
375. 10d. in Holland, a difference which never existed
till our own restrictive laws ereatedit. The consequence
of our present system was, that the high price of
Corn in this country caused our manufactures to ea-
ter every market in tl4e world under great disad-
vantages, and we should have lost every market in
the world had we not had, in the better division of
our labour and in the superiority of our enterprise,
our machinery, our fuel, and our roads, advantages
which counterbalanced the fearful odds which the
disparity in the price of food produced against us.
The country gentleman, who fancied that the de-
struction of that disparity of price would be injurious
to his interests, was completely mistaken. The
areierig .f" the trade in corn would make the price
of corn rise at Dantzic—it would not make it fall in
England—on the contrary, the price in our market
would be kept up, and the only alteration it would
make, would be, that to the foreign manufacturer
the price of corn would he increased. He entered
into a statement of considerable length to prove that
the present monopoly of the landed intere-t was
no less injurious to themselves than to the country.
In looking over the returns connected with the corn
laws, he found that whenever restriction had taken
place, the price of corn had immediately lowered in
our market, and that the landholder had not de-
rived from it the benefit which he anticipated. He
was therefore guilty of narrowing the means of our
manufacturers by his endeavours to keep up a higher
price here than in other parts of Europe, and was
at the same time pursuing a system which, unless a
relaxation was made in it, must ultimately be pro-
ductive of his own ruin. A curious fact connected
with this subject had been communicated to him.
The Hon. Member for Leeds—(a laugh)—had told
him, he had compiled and published a set of tables,
which illustrated very forcibly the evils of a restric-
tive system. It was not, perhaps, generally known,
that up to a given time the corn trade in France and
Sweden had been completely free. The Hon. Mem-
ber had proved that up to the year 1823, the price
of corn in France was 635. Bd. After the intro-
duction of the restrictive system the price had
fallen to 4-Is. 6d., a result which showed that
the system of restriction, while it injured the
manufacturer, did not benefit the agriculturist. In
Sweden, for eine years before the introduction of
the restrictive system, the price of corn was 275.
For the six years which had elapsed since that time
the average price of corn was 17s. Gd., being a re-
duction of nearly one-fifth from its former value.
The Hon. Member than proceeded to point out the
,mischief which the high price of corn created in the
manufacturing districts. Corn was the last article
with which the manufacturing labourer could diss
pense. When the price of it was high, he worked
for ten, twelve, or even fourteen hours a day, in the
hope of procuring by his extra hours of work an
additional amount of wages to enable him to pur-
chase bread for his family. He did not understand
the manner in which that additional industry on
his part operated to his disadvantage. He created
by it a glut of articles of which he might easily get
rid if he were permitted to take corn in payment;
but he was prohibited from such a course by our
system of corn laws, which thus aggravated the
evils which they originally created. The fatal con-
sequences of this system were not, however, con-
fined to our manufacturers—they recoiled with fatal
force upon our agriculturists. The Hon. Member
entered into several details to prove this point ; and
then proceeded to show that by adhering to our
restrictive system, we were establishing a blockade
against ourselves, we were assassinating our own
commercial greatness, and leaving our population
to all the evils of a curtailed supply. The present
system of corn laws was also calculated to create very
injurious derangements in the currency. It was time,
'he thought for nations to consider the propriety
of making those mutual relations by which one
country could exchange to another what was use-
less to herself for something capable of being useful.
As long as things remained on their present footing,
nothing good could be done—corn would be rotting
and spoiling in Poland, while British manufactures
would be sunk in depreciation at home. Once ad-
mit the principle of fair reciprocity of exchange, then
the products-of these countries would soon find the
proper value common to both, and be alike useful,
instead of being as at present comparatively useless
—a change which would incalculably add to the na-
tional wealth and strength of a country situated like
England. What did he propose as a substitute for
the present evils ? He had no hesitation in saving
a free-trade—not, however, suddenly; for, after long
acquired habits of a certain kind, he knew that any
alteration, to be ultimately effectual, must not be
violent and extreme in its operation, but gradual and