The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-02-26 00:00:00

quence, to lessen the profitableness of all the markets
for agricultural produce. If all capital, manufacturing
and agricultural, were equally taxed for the benefit of
labourers, the wages of labour would universally rise;
and the whole fiscal burdens bearing upon productively
employed capital would, ultimately, be transferred to
consumers. Through the operation of our unequal
taxation, but a small portion of the taxes which press
upon agricultural capital is really borne by the public.
That small portion, however, raises the price of Eng-
lish agricultural produce above the price of continental
produce of the same kind.
The manufacturing capital of England amounts to
two hundred and forty millions—which yield net an-
nual returns of fifty-eight millions, or about thirty per
cent. The farming capital of England exceeds seven
hundred and fifty millions—which yield an average net
profit of less than eight per cent., or about sixty mil-
lions. If the farmers of England were as much fa-
voured by our fiscal arrangements, as "our exporting
manufacturers" are, they would divide annually two
hundred millions, instead of sixty. If, again, the farm-
ers of England, without being unjustly exempted from
taxation as " our exporting manufacturers" are, were
yet enabled (as they ought to be) by an honest adjust-
ment of our fiscal burdens, to throw upon the public
all the taxes affecting their capital, the net returns upon
that casital would be doubled.

But although we have disposed of the fancied dilemma,
on which the Chronicle flattered itself with the belief of
having impaled Sir Robert Peel, we have not yet waded
through all the Chronicle's profundities on this subject.
The following passage breathes a tone of exultation, to
which the anti-corn-law delegates have, for some time
past, been strangers :

" The main consideration' of Sir Robert is, that this is
he ' labourer's question.' Indeed, it is a question both of
his work and his wages—the question of his daily bread.
The new tory edition of the Labourer's Friend' reads
thus I am prepared to ihow that a reduction of (the price
of) food will be a reduction of wages ; and that a reduction of
wages, with a low price of corn, will not benefit the labourer
—inasmuch as it will not command a greater quantity of
other articles which are almost equally essential to the com-
fort of the labourer as corn.' .

" What articles, Sir Robert ? Are they agricultural pro-
ducts or manufacturing ? Meat would be cheaper with
cheapened bread ? and'so would clothing. What other store
is there besides the field and the factory, from which the
labourer will have to purchase these uncheapened, yet essen-
tial, articles of his daily consumption ? The enumeration
ought not to have been omitted."

... To what fatality, or to what perversity of disposition,
on the part of the free-traders, shall we ascribe the fact,
that all the enemies of native 'industry forget, by the
time they reach the last of their positions, the argu-
ments embodied in those from which they started ?
When the Chronicle asks, what articles of consump-
tion are to remain unreduced in price after the esta-
blishment of a free trade in corn, can it be necessary to
remind our contemporary, that the avowed object of
the scheme of corn-law repeal, is to render corn com-
paratively cheap—manufactured products compara-
tively dear ?
The reasoning of the free-traders on the point, runs
thus.

The high price of English corn places the manufac-
turers of England at disadvantage, relatively to the ma-
nufacturers of the continent. A repeal of the corn laws
would equalise the price of corn throughout Europe ;
and by equalising the price of corn, render it more dif-
ficult for continental manufacturers to compete with the
manufacturers of England. The existing competition
in the foreign markets has lowered Nice and profits :
if the existing competition were lesgened, prices would
rise abroad ; and according to all orthodox free-trade
reasoning, the prices which our manufactured products
command abroad, regulate their prices at home. There-
fore, (unless they shall confess, that their whole scheme
is a blunder or a fraud) the free-traders must admit that
the success of that scheme would raise the prices of all
manufactured commodities to the English labourer.
Is the Chronicle answered ?

THE CORN LAWS.