The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-02-22 00:00:00

THE CORN LAWS.

Lord BROUGHAM, after presenting several petitions pray-
ing for a repeal of the corn laws, including one from Birming-
ham with 16,000 signatures, and referring to a petition from
the great town of Liverpool, signed by between 25,000 and
26,000 inhabitants, which was to have been presented by
Earl Fitzwilliam, who had been by accident prevented from
doing so—proceeded to address their lordships on the subject
of his motion, that the petitions against the corn laws be re-
ferred to a committee of the whole house, and that evidence
be heard at the bar. The subject, as he observed, occupied
the minds of all men out of doors, and no small share of the
attention of that house ; and he wished to state so much of
the facts of the case, which the petitioners we:e prepared to
prove upon oath, as might be necessary to drive such of their
lordships as opposed the prayer of the petitioners into this
dilemma—either they admitted his facts to be true and to re-
quire no proof, or affirmed that they were so false that no
proof could demonstrate them"—or asserted that the matter
in itself was so utterly immaterial, that whether the facts
were true or false was of no sort of importance. The
noble and learned lord went a great length into the evils
caused by the uncertainty introduced into the trade in corn by
the present corn law, which had involved numerous wealthy
individuals in ruin. " I recollect," said the noble and learned
lord: " at the period of the discussion on the corn-law bill,
when the enemies of the bill declared to the promoters of it,
Oh, all you want by your bill is to make grain dear !" Oh,
no such thing !' it was replied ; nothing can be further from
our intention than to raise the price of grain.' Then it was
said to them, You want to keep corn up to a certain price.'
To this it was declared, No, no ; nothing of the kind ; we
do not seek that at all. That is not our object ; it is a mis-
take altogether.' (Laughter.) This, indeed, appeared to be
very odd. You, who are for corn law, will not let in foreign
grain at a low price ; and yet you say you do not wish to
keep up the price. (Laughter.) And then, you are dealers
in grain, and yet you do not wish to be dear, as you actually
wish it to be cheap. Then what is it that you mean, or what
is that you want ? (Laughter.) Oh !' it was answered,
' I'll tell you what we want,—steadiness of price • for steadi-
ness is of more importance than cheapness. Well, then,
what we want is, not to make corn dear ; we would rather
have it cheap ; but what we dread is not cheap corn, but a
fluctuating price for corn ; we shall make it cheap, but we
will not not have it un,teady. (Hear ! and an exclamation
of no, no !' from a few on the opposition benches.) I heard
these arguments elsewhere—l imagined the same course of
reasoning would be adopted here, as 1 winposed the same
degree of rationality would be four, : de.e.,here."
(Laughter.)
The Duke of BINKINGIIAM s-:; cuiturists.
were deprived of protection, it d chipo,sible for ti.e
English farmer to compete with the foreign farmer. He iin-
nlored the house not to sanction the noble and learned lord's
pi-two,. on.
Earl • rANHOPE was quite aware that in many branches,
and in some, too, which had not been mentioned by the
noble and learned lord, considerable manufactures had sprung
up abroad ; but even an equalization of prices of corn would
not enable us to undersell the foreign manufacturers in their
own markets. Whatever the House of Commons might do,
he was sure the House of Lords would never agree to any
alteration of the present law.
The Duke of RICHMOND contended that if they repealed
the corn laws, it would be impossible to collect the greater
part of the taxes, and he believed that the repeal would be
attended also with this result—that in many parts of the
country a great portion of the land would go out of cultiva-
tion. His grace asked, if manufacturers were at such a low
ebb how so much money could be procured for railroads ?
Lord MELBOURNE observed that Lord Brougham seemed
to labour under a consciousness that the course he recom-
mended was not the proper one ; for the more clearly he
stated the facts, and the more obvious his reasoning on the
facts he adduced, the less necessity he proved for adopting
the course recommended by him. If be wished to perplex
and puzzle the question—if he wished to procrastinate the
consideration of it—he knew of no more effectual way of
doing so than by having an inquiry at the bar of the house.
He was, therefore, against such an inquiry ; and if the house
did not consent to go into an inquiry, it would not be thought
that it arose from any indisposition to hear evidence, or from
a desire to avoid the subject ; but from an intimate convic-
tion that the preseent course had been mistakenly recom-
mended, and that the object of the promoters of the motion
might be better effected in another manner. His lordship
shortly afterwards admitted, that they had no facts within
their grasp at present to enable them to determine whether
the continental manufacturers had been raised and enabled
to carry on their trade by the corn-laws of this country. He
thought the question might be safely left to the decision of
Parliament.

The Duke of WELLINGTON contended that the agriculture
of the country had now enjoyed protection since 1804, thirty-
five years ; and that fact alone was an argument for proceed-
ing with great caution in any alteration which can interfere
with an interest extending over such a vast portion of the
country. Agriculture cannot yet do without protection, and
therefore the law must be kept up. The protection cannot
be withdrawn without a repeal of many of the duties now af-
fecting land ; and he strongly recommended them not to
withdraw the encouragement hitherto given to agriculture.
Lord Bnou GH A M after a brief reply, in which he ridiculed
his opponents, declined pressing his motion to a division, and
thus terminated the discussion in the Lords.