The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-08 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

Mr. BANNERMAN' rose to move the following re-
solution, of which he had given notice :—" That it is
the opinion of this House, that, considering the present
state of the country, it would be highly expedient to
vest in her present most Gracious Majesty, similar au-
thority to that which was given to her predecessors; and
this House, before the close of this session, will cheer-
fully acquiesce in granting such powers as may enable
her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy Council, to
reduce or discontinue, should circumstances so require,
the duties which now regulate the importation of foreign
corn, until the Ist day of January, 1843, or for six
weeks after the commencement of the next session of
Parliament." He was aware that her Majesty's Go-
vernment might ask for the power which he proposed,
and also that it was opening another discussion on the
Corn-laws. It would also be giving the Right
Honourable Baronet the power of relaxing the
restrictions on the importation of corn. All this
might be said, but it was their imperative duty to agree
to some course before the expiration of the session, that
should tend to \relieve the wide-spread distress that ex-
isted in the country. It was needless for him to say
that this country was, for many years, a large exporting
country. From the year 1696 we have been an import-
ing country, but it was not till 1815 that the Govern-
ment ventured to press such an atrocious prohibitory law
as the present with regard to the importation
of corn. By the Act of Queen Anne her Majesty was
allowed a power of regulating the trade in corn. It was
clear from the wording of the Act that the Government
of that day wisely attempted to provide against the rise
in the price of corn to the prejudice of the people. He
should not trouble the House with any of the statutes re-
ferring to the exporting period. Not one syllable was
said in all the 21. Acts relating to the exportation of corn
referring to importation. In the thirteenth year of
George the Third, his Majesty expressed his great con-
cern at the prospect of an enhanced price of corn. This
was in the speech from the Throne, and the consequence
of this speech was, a law prohibiting the expor-
tation of corn, and in the speech of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer •he said that a
part of the expenses of the year would be the
bounties to be given on the importation "of corn ; and
from that period to 1805 no less a sum than 2,600,0001.
was paid for these bcunties. In the year 1796, the
Crown was authorised, whatever might be the
price of corn and flour, to permit the importation of
corn duty free. The Act went still farther, and per-
mitted the importation of all kinds of provisions, cattle,
wine, sheep, poultry, fowls, and articles of subsistence,
of every dt:scription.—(Hear, hear.) The next statute
he should refer to was one of a much more recent (late ;
in 1826, when the Right Hon. Gentleman was a Mem-
ber of the Government, a revision of the Corn-laws
was proposed. At that time great distress prevailed,
and although no measure ' was proposed that ses-
sion, yet a resolution was moved that the Par-
liament should allow the Crown to authorise . the
releasing froth bond, duty free, a . quantity of corn
not exceeding 500,000 quarters. The extracts from the
speech of Mr.. Canning on that occasion proved that the
object of the Government was to relieve the great dis-
tress of the country. In the same debate, a living states-
man, whom he saw before him, the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth, declared that it was no. use
to allow col n to be taken out of bond for sale,
since the people had not money to purchase it.
The Hon Gentleman then read several passages from
the speeches of Lord Stanley and Lord Aberdeen seine
years ago, when they advocated those principles which
he (Mr. B.) was then upholding. Before he sat down,
there was one remark which he wished to make with re-
spect to what had taken place lately in that House. The
Right Hon. Baronet had stated that in 1833, 1834, and
1835, the manufacturing districts were in a most flou-
rishing condition. That was certainly an undoubted
fact. He then stated that no corn was imported in those
years. This was an undoubted fact. The Right Hon.
Baronet then drew the inference that this was a benefit

to the manufacturing interest. While he (Mr. Banner-
man) admitted that there was no corn imported during

those years, he begged to remind the Hight Hon. Baronet
that the price of wheat was 48s. Bd., and in the next four
years the price of wheat was 645. 4d., being no less a diffe-
rence than 17s. the quarter. Therefore, he left the House to
judge, supposing that this country consumed thirty mil-
lions of quarters annually, what an enormous sum of
money was paid by the consumers of this country
during these four years for wheat over what was paid
the previous years ; and during the latter period the
manufacturers were certainly not prosperous. He there-
fore thought that he was justified in submitting the re-
solutions
of which he had given notice to the House.
Mr. WALLACE seconded the motion.
On the motion being put,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was aware of the unani-
mous feeling of the House with respect to. the distress
of the country, but there were differences of opinion as
to the mode of relieving it.—(Hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman had rested a great part of his case
upon the precedent of former Acts, and he referred .to
the Acts passed during the revolutionary war. Now he
(Mr. Gladstone) said that those Acts were entirely be-
side present question. The first Act quoted was
that the
passed in 1795, when the price of wheat was 755.
2d., and, during the whole of the war the average price
certainly was never under 705., and it was frequently
between 80s. and 100 s.. Commerce was then hampered
to a dreadful extent, and it was actually necessary that
those Acts should be passed then; but stch Acts' would
be totally inapplicable to a time. of peace. The Hon.
Gentleman next referred to the Act of 1826. But it