Star.
London, England, 1814-05-18 00:00:00

THE CORN LAWS.

A Petition against the proposed change in the Corn •
LAws was presented by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, and
ordered to lie on the table.
On the motion of Mr. FOSTER for the recorit•
mittal of the Report respecting•the Corn Laws,
Sir JOHN' NEWPORT expressed his conviction
that themost convincing arguments had been adduced
to she that it was the policy of this country to guard
its home agriculture by providing against the free
import of foreign corn. If it were asked whether it
was necessary to alter the arre.ngements of 1804, or
provide any additional guard for our,agticulture, as
that agriculture had since increased, he should answer
that this increase was not owing to those arrange.
ments, but to the peculiar nature of our relations
with foreign States. Besides, it was now impossible
to put the agriculturists in the same state that they
were in in 1801-, as so many additional burthens had
been since impoSed upon them, and would it then be
fair to expose them to competition in their own
market with foreign agriculturists, after having in-
curred those very burthens—after becoming subject
to such a weight of taxation for the deliverance of
Europe, for the advantage of foreign States, in order
to relieve them from the calamities of wars ? Such a
proposition would, indeed, be utterly destitute of com-
mon justice, as to allow a foreigner, armed witlt the,
security which Great Britain had purchased for him
by '2O years war, to undersell the British trader in his
own market". In fact, the principles.of a free trade
could not be fairly applied to the question of' corn, es-
pecially after those pi inciples had hewn departed front
with regard to our other manufactures. Our woollen
manufacture, for instance, was protected against the
competition of any foreigner whatever in our own
ket, and why should not o'er corn meet an equal
protection? It was alledged that the proposed ar-
rangement would serve to impose a permanent tax
udon the consumer; but he denied the justice of this
allegation. It, however, it were evan true, he should
have no hesitation to assert, that it would be for the
interest of the consumer to pay that tax in order to
sect:re the advantages of that steady supply, and in-
dependency of any foreign State, which the measure
promised. As to the argunteat, that the tendency of
this me isure would he to throw capital unnaturally

into agriculture, he thonght it quite untenable, as the
only probablejestilt would be to recover for agricul-
ture, which formed the most solid wealth of a nation,
that capital which had been heretofore diverted from
it by an undue partiality to manufactures. But the,
• advantages •r hick the proposed Al rangeme4t held out
'to Ireland ware incalculable. In that country, the
interest of which was completely identified with that
of Great Britain, not above one-fourth of the people
were employed in manufactures, the. rem7tinder being
wholly dependent on agriculture or pasturage, and
there agaiculttire has of late years made very conside-
rable advance ; insomuch, indeed, that it had ',Ton-
ed a vast quantity of corr. to this part of the empire.
Would it then be fair or wise to impede the prosperity
of that country ? But it such impediment were :really
offered, what must be the state of things between the
two countries? Ireland at present took the risanufac-
tures of England, and paid for their corn. it indeed
prohibited any manufacturer from enter inginto com-
petition with that of England in the Irish market. Its
duties with a view to that prohibition were, upon
woollen, as 5U to 1 in favour of England—upon hard-
ware as 33 to 10—upon glass as b 3 to 10, and so on
in proportion upon earthenware and other articles of
English manulactnre. Would it then be an equita-
ble return towards Ireland to withhold due encourage-
ment from that agriculture which enabled it to pay
for such articles—which enabkd it, especially of late
years, to become the best customer of England ? In
tact, if that encouragement were ref used, he could not
.e,csaceive how the Irish people were to pay these Ab-,
sentee rents, which formed so severe a drain upon that
country. These absentee rents, however, were spoilt
in England, which thus profited. in every point of
• view, by the improving industry of Ireland. To the
interest of that country he therefore trusted that the
House would look with peculiar solicitude, and no-
dthing could contribute so materially to that interest
• as the encouragement- of agriculture, to which the
• , Irish wet e peculiarly disposed, and which was so much
• more calculated than pasturage, or perhaps even ma-
, npfactures, to promote morality, industry, and good
order. * _ .

Mr. BURp.ELL said, that many Gentlemen
seemed to conceive that corn was the only thing which
ought to be lowered in price. He would wish to
know whether any of them had found out a way to
lower the price of all other comrnodnios in the same
proportion. Oqr farmers were loaded with taxes nn
land, horses, leather, propgro-ta4, and tithes, beyond
what the farmers of other nations were subject to. It
corn tha v t s subject to none of these ditties were
allowed .to come free into Zpr market, this country
would SOOTI he overwhelmed with corn from the Con-
tinent. When wp had, from official accounts, a
statement of the rapid *Tease of agriculturp in.
Ire.
land, were we ton check her prosperous carevr ? the
tgricultoristt or this country did not ask for motiqr
poly—they onfwvanted protection. They did ui-,t
want to raise the price of Ott loaf ;spoil the poor, but