The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-16 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sin,—My attention was first called to this publication by
the high encomiums passed upon it by the anti-corn law press,
and more especially by extracts published in the Leeds Mer-

cury of the 18th April. The table there set forth is a most
valuable document, and contrary to the intention of either
Mr. Wilson or the editors of the Mercury, affords such
abundant proof of the excellent working of the present corn
laws, that, after a calm and dispassionate examination, no
one, I think, can deny that these laws are highly beneficial,
and ought to be preserved ; all this I said in a letter dated 23d
April, and published in the Leeds Intelligencer, and other
papers. Having been thus called upon, I have read the book,
and from the style in which it is written, I am not surprised
that it should have attracted notice. There are many pas-
sages in it which I should have been'proud to have called my
own ; it does not deal in that vulgar abuse and vituperation
too common in works advocating a repeal of the corn laws.
But there is not in the whole book one line to prove that the
present corn laws have acted prejudicially on the country, nor
yet one to show that a repeal of them would produce the
slightest benefit. The fundamental argument of the author
is intended to show the injurious effects of fluctuations in
the price of wheat, and that the present corn laws neces-
sarily produce great and frequent changes of price; he calls
these "the extraordinary fluctuations which have taken place
of late years in the price of wheat." This, he says, " must
ever continue to be the result of protective and prohibitory
laws, because from this necessary tendency the whole of the
evils of the present systm have arisen." In speaking of the
prejudicial consequencegbrthe present corn laws and those
of 1815, he says, " the mbst striking feature is the great in-
equality and fluctuation of price ; " he says also, " no article
of extensive consumption in this country ought to be from
the nature of its prodnetion and consumption so free from
fluctuation as wheat." I cannot possibly agree in this opinion.
Wheat in its production is subject to vicissitudes of great ex-
tent ; even in this happy climate a difference of produce
amounting to one-fourth or one-sixth has been often known,
whilst the absolute necessity of it makes the consumption
regular. Mr. Wilson says, "it is therefore plain that ine-
quality of demand cannot be the cause of fluctuation of prices.
if bread corn were as unnecessary as nutmegs, or other luxu-
ries, a high price would lessen the consumption ; so far from
this being the case with wheat, I fear the poor man, when
bread is dear, eats less meat, and therfore requires more
bread than usual. But as far as I know, it has ever been a
rule in logic first to establish the premises upon which the argu-
ment is founded. Mr. W. has not done this, nor is it possible
for him to do so, because the assumption has no foundation in
truth. In answering this the first and greatest charge which Mr.
Wilson has made against the corn laws, I shall, of course,
confine myself to the present corn laws, it being both useless
and absurd to defend laws which have long since been re-
pealed. Now, it is quite impossible to suppose that Mr.
Wilson has made this heavy accusation against the presen
corn laws, for the purpose of misleading his readers, at the
same time it is difficult to imagine how such an acute writer
could have overlooked facts which had been publicly stated
over and over again, and the truth of which could have been
so easily ascertained. To' show how much Mr. Wilson errs
in speaking of the ill effects of the corn laws, when lie says
", the most striking feature is the great inequality of fluctua-
tion of price," I will quote from a table published from par-
liamentary returns, which gives the price of wheat in each
year from 1717 to 1840. This table shews the rate of fluc-
tuation per cent. in every period of five years down to 1833 ;
thus from 1797 to 1802 the fluctuations are stated to be 220 per
cent. ; from 1802 to 1807 100 per cent. ; from 1807 to 1812 74
per cent. ; from 1812 to 1817 183 per cent. ; from 1817 to 1822
143 per cent. ; from 1822 to 1827 81 per cent., and from
1828, the first year of the present corn laws, to 1833, the
fluctuations only amounted to 40 per cent. ; as this table
goes no further, I must myself calculate the next five years,
but to remove all doubt of the accuracy of my calculations,
I will give the parliamentary returns for these five years :
they are 1833, 535. ld. ; 1834, 465. 2d. ; 1335, 395. 4d. ;
1836, 48s. 6d. ; 1837, 555. 10d. The fluctuations are there-
fore nearly 42 per cent., and I can see no reason why the
fluctuations in the following five years should be made
greater. The steadiness as well as the moderation of the
prices of wheat in the last two years, notwithstanding the
very great deficiency of the crops, prove how much the pre-
sent corn laws tend to keep prices equable. I therefore
think the assumption that the corn law is injurious, by
causing fluctuations in the price of wheat, is disproved, and
of course all the arguments founded upon it perfectly useless.
The average amount of fluctuations in every period of five
years for the thirty years immediately preceding the passing
of the present corn laws having been 133 per cent., and the
average of each five years since the present law being only
41 per cent., the proofs of the advantage of the present corn
in preventing great fluctuations in the price of wheat is so
triumphant as to leave no doubt of it.
There are two other positions which Mr. Wilson seems
anxious to establish—one is, that the fluctuations in the price
of wheat are not to be attributed to good or bad seasons. He
says, " We must at once banish from our mind the com-
monly received opinion that the fluctuation of prices are
caused by favourable and unfavourable seasons." He says
they are the effect of speculations arising from previous high
or low prices. Now there can be no doubt that improved or
neglected tillage would, in a few years, materially alter the
quantity of the productions of the earth, and that high or
low prices would influence the cultivation is equally certain ;
but to deny that good or bad seasons alter these productions
in a still more sudden manner, is to deny that which is as
clear as noon day sun. Thirdly, Mr. Wilson asserts that
the repeal of the corn-laws would not reduce the price of
wheat, but the contrary ; the way in which he says this, has
the marks of sincerity. He says this opinion is totally diffe-
rent from what either the agriculturist or the manufacturer
holds. True, and it is not very wonderful that people should
expect when the market of supply is widely extended, and
the demand not in the smallest degree increased, that a fall
of prices should follow ; what may be the effect produced by
a continuation of low prices is another question ; but Mr.
Wilson anticipates no decline of prices. My opinion, how-
ever, is, and always has been, unless the seasons prove very
ungenial, or the British farmers have a full anticipation of
the change, and reduce their cultivation immediately, that a
great reduction of prices will be the consequence of the
repeal, and I think the natural effect of this reduction (which
Mr. H. seems so well to understand), being that British hus-
bandry will be so much reduced as to occasion in unfavourable
seasons, and when our continental friends either cannot or
will not minister to our wants, such an advance in the price
as has not been known here for many ages past. To pre-

serve a steadiness of prices in corn has always been my own
anxious desire, and I know of nothing so likely to effect this
great blessing as the preservation of sliding duties, and the
maintenance of that law, unaltered, and in all its integrity
which has hitherto produced this happy effect. Had this
gentleman been more happy in proving his propositions, I
should gladly have given him credit for being more able
to discuss the merits or demerits of the present corn-
laws; but though he has as I think failed in proving any
one of them, let us not deny him praise for what he has
done aright. Many passages in his book .proclaim a wise
head and a kind heart. I will give two short extracts
of that description, he says, "-Wherever provisions are
dearest, the condition of the bulk of the labourers is de-
cidedly best, and their ability to command the necessaries,
comforts, and even elegancies of life, form a striking contrast
with the extreme difficulty with which even the barest neces-
saries are obtained, where they are cheapest." He says—
" compare the condition of the whole labourers of this coun-
try with that of any of the countries of the continent where
provisions are at the lowest prices, compare their diet,
clothing, and habitation, with what are allotted to the labour-
ing classes in Prussia, Poland, or France, and see how supe-
rior the worst classes are in these respects in this country
compared with the very best in those of supposed abundance
and cheapness." The publication of such truths as these is
deserving the highest praise, especially when produced for
the benefit of the anti-corn-law people. Mr. Wilson's fourth
And last proposition is, " What change in the present corn
laws would best suit the interests of all parties ?" To this I
do not think it necessary to reply, because I think they re-
quire no alteration, and because to concede anything, material
would be to destroy. I think the time has now arrived when
I may properly retire from the controversy on the long agi-
tated question of the " corn laws." I entered upon its dis-
cussion for the purpose, solely, of explaining to my country-
men, in the best way I was able, the nature and operation of
these laws, and if possible to convince them that, whilst af-
fording a fair, and but a fair protection to the British farmer,
they did not injuriously affect the commercial and manufac-
turing interests of the country. I have also been anxious
that a question involving subh vast and complicated interests
should be discussed with temper and sobriety of language,
and the progress of the argument in favour of these laws has
convinced me that the good sense of my countrymen is not
to be abused with impunity, but that time and reflection only
are necessary to ensure from them a fair and candid judg-
ment, and I trust that henceforth nothing will occur to dis-
turb that friendly feeling which it is essential should exist
between the agricultural and commercial communities. In
looking back upon what I have written on this subject, I feel
that I may congratulate myself in having abstained from all
asperity of expression, nor have I, to my knowledge, violated
in a single instance that respect which was due to those who
differed from me in opinion. I have been deeply impressed
with a des::e to disabuse the public mind, of what I considered
very erroneous opinions, and unfounded prejudices, and for
this purpose I offered the benefit of my long experience upon
subjects connected with the corn laws, and I hope I have
not wholly failed in my object. I beg leave, Sir, to thank
you for the readiness with which you have published my let-
ters in your paper, and to offer the same acknowledgment to
every other Editor who has condescended to give them in-
sertion. Should anything arise to require it, I shall be at
my post, but I feel persuaded the advantages of the present
corn laws are now more known and better appreciated than
at any former period, and I most sincerely hope the agitation
of the question will cease.
I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant,
JOHN BAKER.
Nassau Cottage, Leeds, 9th June, 1840.

r 3—lLSr—irb's\?.
1
CZ. • -2._47.'''' tt
E....
.:. j ..,......,,,.
4,,! .....
ee I' 7t7-C?:
1— - tt-i, • ):,--- eV
4t, -......71__.• w.c....:_4?-1- ~,,,.
lie. tz-s.
. A,

SECOND EDITION.