The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-15 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Mr,illtz,micus rose to bring forward his promised motion
on the subject of the corn laws. [At the time the house was
very full, and there were loud cries of " Bar, bar," and
Chair, chair," in consequence of the number of members
gathered at the lower end of the house and at the bar. Or-
der having been restored the hon. gentleman proceeded.]
He said that it was in pursuance of that course which he ven-
tured to suggest in the early part of the session, that it would
be •couvenient to discuss the subject of the corn laws, that
he now rose to bring under the consideration of the house
those mare general consequences of the law, which upon the
lasKoccasion were kept out of sight. Certainly, he consider-
ed, that it was far more preferable to judge a measure by its
general effects than by what were deemed its special or par-
tiqn,lar effects and more particularly it was necessary in this
cao, because it was impossible to do justice to the subject
withollt
,tqlang the most. comprehensive view of it. Still he
wak'deci4edly of opimouthat any law alleged to be prejudicial
toAlie 'manufacturing or mercantile interests of the country
witsireir Worthy of being the subject of distinct deliberation
in ; and, notwithstanding the aspersions which
hatFbeen 'cast on the manufacturing interests of the country
for• their impatienes, and their want of feeling, still he could
not but think that they had taken the proper steps, and in
his opinion they had pursued the only proper course. They
had not only pursued a course which was reasonable and be-
coming is them to do so, but, whether as regards the present

0 or the future prospects of this question, he had no hesitation
whatever in saying that their course had been the most judi-
cious that could have been pursued. He had only to regret
that those who openly opposed this question so far forgot
what was generally expected in this house, that you should
hear before you decide. (Hear.) But the manner in which
this question was now proposed for discussion would elicit
upon what grounds it was that the house thought it expedient
to refuse to hear the information that was tendered, and
whether it was that that information was possessed, and
needed not to be sought, or whether that information was in
dispute, and it was thought wise so to leave it. The manner
in which the question now came before the house would open
the widest field for the display of all the intelligence that
could be brought into its discussion, and there would be this
advantage, which he feared would be the only one, that it
would at least allow the country to know upon what ground
the majority of the house and the legislature of the country
intended to maintain these laws against the feelings and the
wishes of the community. (Hear.) He was glad to observe,
moreover, the eagerness which opponents manifested for the
discussion. There was one hon. member in particular so
anxious to be heard that he not only proposed to negative
this moticn, but he recorded his arguments along with his
notice • and it was of so bold a character that he (Mr. Vil-
liers) felt very curious so hear him explain its policy. He
hoped that upon this occasion also they should hear those
more general views taken of this subject that they had been
reproved on this side for not having taken, and that when
told that this was not only an economical question, but one
far wider, he trusted that they should hear what were the
more political, social, and moral considerations. which justi-
fied the support of such a law—(hear.) The question would
now be so regarded, and most certainly he should not shrink
from so regarding it, because he believed that the more ex-
tensively viewed, the more minutely its consequences were
examined, the less would persons be left in doubt as to its
policy or its tendency. But still be was of opinion that this
was a very simple question, and was as simple as many of
those questions that had been already decided. It appeared
to resemble such a question as that of personal liberty, or as
freedom of opinion. There seemed to be even less difficulty
to decide it, and to him it was a matter of surpriae that it
should be left until that day to decide a question so little diffi-
cult as this. It really appeared astonishing that they should
be in this period of English history gravely discussing whe-
ther a free, industrious, and commercial people should have
the right to exercise their calling in any manner they pleased
—that they should have the liberty to carry on their trade in
any manner that should be most profitable to themselves and
advantageous to the state, or whether they should be allowed
the liberty of obtaining the subsistence which they might re-
quire at the least cost to themselves and the best advantage
to the country. He would repeat that it was difficult to
conceive that at this period they were discussing a question
of that kind, and it would be a curious sign of the intelligence
and integrity of the house that it should be found that one
member, who deemed it important to move that it was the
privilege of the people to exercise their industry with perfect
liberty, and that another member (and perhaps the more suc-
cessful one) should have moved that it was important that the
people should be restricted in the exercise of that liberty, and
that the law which limited the amount and raised the price
of human subsistence had worked well for the interests of the
country—(hear, hear). If it occurred to the noble lord to
think that they must slumber pending an inquiry into the
consequences of such a law, it seemed to be no stretch of
the imagination to suppose that those who resisted the motion
made to-night should heartily laugh, when they went forth to
a division on that motion, at the imbecility and ignorance of
the people who could submit to such a law as the present—
(hear). But, not to expose himself again to the charge of
arguing this question upon too narrow a ground, and as it
seemed by the author of the amendment to be proposed that
they should consider its import upon the productive industry
of the country, it appeared to him to be appropriate that
he should at once proceed to consider the question in its
effects upon the most numerous and importint class of
the community. That class he considered to be the work-
ing class, for upon their condition and upon their content-
ment must the stability of the whole social fabric depend.
He knew that it was not usual in the discussion of this ques-
tion to put very prominently forward the labourer. It was
new this session to hear this was a labourer's question. He
was aware there was another class for whose protection it
was said these corn laws were kept up—he was aware of the
claims which were always put forth on behalf of what was
called
,the British farmer—the English grower. He hoped
the case of the British farmer would receive on this occasion
a very clear and distinct consideration, bemuse he was per-
fectly well aware that that valuable class of capitalists were
under some delusion upon this subject—(hear, hear •,) but he
was perfectly aware that they were vigilant upon this ques-
tion—that their attention had been drawn to the subject, and
he thought it likely that they would attend to the discussion
which took place on this occasion. He thought they would
expect something more on this occasion than vague declama-
tion about their importance or exaggerated statements of
their distress. They would hear, on the one hand, that the
corn laws had protected them, and they would hear, on the
other side, that the corn laws certainly had not protected them
from distress, that they were not interested in the corn laws,
and that the corn laws had occasioned that distress. He very
much wished the whole discussion would turn on the interest
of the farmer, because it was the only plausible plea, in his
opinion, for the support of this law. He was very anxious
not to be in error in any thing that he said with reference to
this part of the subject, and he hoped that he should be cor-
rected if he were so. Was not thefarmer a person who, having
certain property, wished to employ his capital in the cultiva-
tion of land, and did he not go to the owner of the land in the
same spirit, and for the same purpose, as any merchant might
go to the owner of a vessel, or any person engaged in trade
might borrow money? He was a capitalist, and he went in
a commercial spirit to the person who was to enable him to
engage in his trade. Could there be any doubt that the price
at which he was able to obtain his land must be determined
by the value of the produce of'the land, and the competition
amongst capitalists ? The capitalists couid not allow him to
obtain more than the average rate of profit, and the owner of
the land, from the circumstance that there were other capi-
talists to compete with him, would not allow him to have the
land at a less rate. If a aw should be passed that should
propose to fix the produce of land at 80s. or 645, and the per-
son who took the land expected the price of his produce, he
(Mr. V.) supposed it would not be denied that he would pay
in proportion to the value. But it was said there were cer-
tain local charges, and it was proper and just that the farmer
should have protection. These charges were not subsequent
to his occupation of the land ; they were known beforehand—
they were the subject of precise estimate—they justified all
his charges incident to the occupation of his house. He took
the land subject to all the charges ; all the difference it made
was, that if these charges were high, or the value of produce
was high, it required a larger capital than it would otherkise
require. This seemed to be so evident that perhaps it would
not be disputed ; but it might be said that these charges
placed the agriculturist in this country under disadvantageous
circumstances when in competition with those of any other
country. He ventured to say that the manner in which they
proposed to indemnify the farmer for these local charges
had the precise, effect of enhancing the price of pro-
visions. He had poor-rates, county-rate, labourers, servants,
and assessed taxes ; which of these was not increased by
adding to the cost of provisions ? How was he interested ?
If these local charges are too much for him, according to the
price he paid for his land, his business was to go to the per-
son of whom he took the land, that he might abate in the
price ; but it was quite clear that he had no interest in all
these out-goings and charges being higher than was neces-
sary. But, perhaps it would be said that all these things
were true, that the farmer had an interest in the high price
of produce—that he could only get profit for his capital ac-
cording to the amount of produce. He had reason to expect
from the nature of the amendment that they shcaild hear to-
night, that notwithstanding all these things—that either
through the gift of Heaven or the munificence of the land-
lord, or from some other circumstance that could not be ex-
plained—that important class the farmers of this country had
done well ever since the corn-laws—they had ever been con-
tented, and it was a thousand pities to disturb that which
worked well. He then proceeded at considerable length to
argue that the burdens of the manufacturers were greater
than those of the landed interest. In reference to the latter
he said—You keep up those laws, you say, that you may be
enabled to meet your public burdens. That is, you have
these burdens, your public establishments, your public debt,
and your aristocracy ; and you support the third that you
may have the better support for the other. two. But to re-
peal these laws in the present state of your relations with the
northern powers, and with America, would be useful in a
politiCal as well as a commercial view—would be the best
security for permanent peace. The agriculturists plead that
they have the malt tax to bear. Let the malt tax then be
remitted—nay, any just compensation to get rid of a bad
system—only get rid of it. There are signs of the times
from which the landlords ought to discern that they cannot
continue much longer to set up their private interest against
the intelligence, industry, 'commerce, and numbers of the
country..
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND seconded the motion.
Mr. CAYLEY moved, as an amendment—" 1. That, under
the heavy debt and taxation of this country, its productive
industry and vested interests require to be protected from the
lightly taxed produce and cheaper labour of foreign countries ;
2. That the existing corn-law, by the protection it has
afforded to the growers of corn under low prices, and to the
consumers of it under high, has essentially answered the
purposes of its enactment."

- Mr. P. THOMSON, in a speech of considerable length,
argued against the corn-law, and supported the original
motion.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL was perfectly aware of the difficulty
of following the hon. gentleman on a subject of this kind,
with which he was so perfectly at home. But there were
some points on which he wished to observe. He had heard,
with much astonishment and surprise, the statements that
had been made by' a minister of the crown. (Hear, hear.)
He was astonished to hear from that minister that he was
prepared to act upon principles of agitation. (Hear.) He
had promised in the beginning to state what were the inten-
tions of government for going into committee ; but that pro-
mise had not been fulfilled. It was stated the house was to
go into committee to.consider the act ; but it was expected
that it would have been made known what was the govern-
ment scheme on this subject. He had referred to Mr. Can-
ning's proposition in March, 1827. Why had not a similar
course been adopted by government on the present occasion ?
He would tell hon. members opposite thatthe public expected,
in this kind of question, the government to take on itself the
responsibility belonging to office. (Cheers.) They had not
done so, nor had they even deigned to inform the house what
plan they proposed. (Hear, hear.) There was the difference
between the government and the hon. member who brought
forward the motion and amendment. The latter had frankly
and openly acted in the matter. They had said the land-
owners deserved no protection, and they had called' for an
entire abolition of the existing laws. He had anxiously lis-
tened for the proposal of the government ; but he could not,
for the life of him, learn what were their intentions. He
would not consent to go into committee as proposed, because,
perhaps, then there would be a coalition between the two
parties—government and the proposer and supporters of the
abolition. Would the government rely on the authority of
Mr. Canning ? No ; they would persuade the house to go
into committee, and then would attempt to establish a free
trade. But why was corn (the right hon. gentleman had said)
to be treated differently to other commodities ? He would
answer that corn was a necessary article, and in that it was
most important to prevent foreign competition. He thought
the real question now before the house was whether or not they
should afford any protection to the large numbers engaged in
cultivating and tilling the ground. (Hear, hear.) He would
beg hon. gentlemen to remember that. He would tell them
that if they once established a fixed duty, it would not last
three years. When once the protection was removed, it
would never be regained. He thought the right honourable
gentleman the chancellor of the exchequer ought to side with
thein in this. He could not imagine any scheme that would
be more injurious to that department. He would tell the
chancellor of the exchequer that the right hon. member the
president of the board of trade was more likely to rob the
exchequer than any man in that house. (A laugh.) If free
trade were asked with regard to corn, it must be with regard
to all other articles. (" Hear, hear," from the ministerial
side of the house.) Really those cheers were fedrful from
the other side. It had been said in the course of the present
evening, and repeated more than once, that this was a land-
lord's question, and that the farmers and labourers were not
at all concerned. He disagreed. upon that point. He could
not understand how it was possible for the landlord to be in
a state of prosperity, whilst the farmer, who occupied his
land, was in a state of adversity. He believed that their
interests were linked together. As regarded the labourer,
his case rested on the same principle. As far as his expe-
rience went, labourers had been found in a better condition
when the price of corn was high. Take the case of a labourer,
with a wife and four children, He would assume that he had
12s. a week, and that the price of corn during the time he
was receiving those wages was Is. per gallon. Suppose that
6s. was spent in the purchase of wheat, he had 6s. to supply

himself with other, necessaries. But suppose that instead of
receiving 12s. a week, he only received 65., and that his
bread cost him 35., would he then be .as well off with only 3s.
to spare, as he was when he h 6s. for other necessaries ?
Would not lower wages place him in an infinitely worse
situation ? If the house adopted a measure which should
lower the price of ar. :,::tural produce, how was it possible
that it could he can...d into effect ? The hon. member for
Wolverhampton had concluded his speech by declaring that
there were three great incumbrances which it was necessary
to remove. He had stated those incumbrances to be the
church establishment, the debt, and the aristocracy. He had
treated the aristocracy as if they ought not to exist. Of
course the clergy and all who had considerable possessions of
land were comprised in the term aristocracy. What then
was be thought of a person who, to benefit one class of the
community, would annihilate a large elasS of her-Majesty's
subjects. That class of persons deserved at the hands of the
country a different consideration. It was not true that the
aristocracy raised the price of food iu order to depress the
people. Their best defence was in their high and unble-
mished character. On the subject of these laws he would
say that the recommendation of Mr. Huskisson was the most
secure course that could be adopted. Mr. Huskisson said,
" The history of the country for the list 170 years clearly
proves, on the one hand, that cheapness produced by foreign
import is the sure forerunner of scarcity ' • and, on the other,
that a steady home supply is the only safe foundation of steady
and moderate prices. During upwards of 100 years, up to
the year 1765, the import of foreign corn was restrained by
very high duties. What was the state of the country during
those 100 years ? That in ordinary seasons our own growth
supplied a stock of corn fully ample for our own consump-
tion ; that in abundant seasons we had some to spare, which
we exported ; that in bad seasons we felt no want, and were
under no apprehensions ; that the price of corn seldom
varied more than a few shillings per quarter ; that we had no
years of inordinate gain to the farmer, and of starvation to
the consumer ; that prices, instead of rising from year to
year, were gradually diminishing, so that, at the end of this
long period of a century, during which we never imported
foreign corn, they were actually one-fifth lower than at the
.beginning of it. Would to God that we had continued in
this salutary system ! But in 1765 it was most unfortunately
abandoned. What has been the result ? Precisely the re-
verse of the former system. Instead of a steady supply,
afforded at steady and moderate prices, we have witnessed
frequent and alarming scarcities. Every year our de-
pendence on foreign supply was increasing till the war came,
and, by interrupting that supply, greatly agitated all our
evils ; for a country which depertds on enemies or rivals for
the food of its people is never safe in war." -

These principles might be applied at all times. He would now
conclude by reading an extract from a letter written by a
person of high authority—a letter which the hon. member
for Huntingdon addressed to his constituents, and it showed
the opinions entertained by the present home secretary in the
year 1822. He asked for the concurrence of the noble lord
m the sentiments which he would read. Theletter was dated
Woburn Abbey, Jan. 14, and was as follows

" It being nil—possible by means of a corn bill to restore the
war prices, I beg of you seriously to consider whether a new
corn bill is likely to do you at present any good whatever.
Supposing you were allowed to frame it yourselves, or that
the legislature should enact a prohibition at all times to im-
port any article of produce as the soil of Great Britain,
would your distress be at all relieved? I think not. I think
also, if you agree thus far, you must also agree with me that
any efforts in this direction are not likely to be attended with
benefit to yourselves. For the truth of this appeal to the
best of all tests—the experience of last year. By active peti-
tioning you obtained a committtee on the state of agricul-
ture. And what was the result ? Evidence proving the
distress beyound all doubt, and a report suggesting no relief
but time and patience. Time has not yet brought you any
consolation ; and at for patience, you surely did not require
21 gentlemen to sit three months for the purpose of recom-
mending that well-known virtue.
" But the committee have also advised an alteration of the
corn bill. That is to say, they recommend a lower importation
price with a duty. Whether such a law as a permanent system
might not be better than the present I am not quite prepared.
to decide. But it is clear that lowering the importation price
would bring you no relief for present distress. And lam
inclined to believe that, with many sugared words, the framer
of the report intended to lay the foundation for subverting the
principle of the Corn Bill alogether, and introducing foreign
corn at all times into the market ; for the principle of admit-
ting foreign corn when our prices are low, being mice granted,
it would be extremely difficult to counterbalance the taxes paid
by the English farmer. A duty of 40s or 50s a quarter lupon
foreign corn would hardly be enacted, and if enacted, certainly
would not be persisted in. But lam inclined to think that if
foreign corn were admitted, even if you had scarcely any taxes
to pay, it would not be easy for the farmers of England, who
require to live in a certain degree of respectability and comfort,
to compete with the lords of Poland and Russia, whose vassal
peasantry are unaquainted with the wants of a civilised state.
Corn is a manufacture (to use our new phraseology) cheaply
produced in a fertile soil, by wretched ploughs, wretched
horses, and wretched men.

"There is a party amongst us, however, distinguished in
what is called the science of political economy, who wish to
substitute the corn of Poland and Russia for our own. Their
principle is, that you ought always to buy where you can buy
cheapest. They repeat with emphasis that the nation pays a
tax of £25,000,000 yearly to the growers of corn. They count
as nothing the value to the county of a hardy race of farmers
and labourers. They are not for the difference between agri-
cultural and a manufacturing population, in:all that concerns
morals, order, national strengh, and national tranq,-*P'ty.
Wealth is the only object of their speculation ; nor do they
much consider the two or three millions of people who may
be reduced to utter beggary in the course of their operations.
This they call diverting capital into another channel. Their
reasonings lie so much in abstract term., their spedulations
deal so much by the gross, tha , have the same insensibi-
lity about the sufferings of a peon ie that a general has respect-
ing the loss of men wearied by Ais operations.
"It is to these men, I suspect, that our ministers are about
to give up Cie question of trade in corn."
Yes, it was to these men thathe suspected our ministers were
about to give up the question (cheers) ; but he called upon
the Houk of Commons to interpose,to prevent this. (cheers)
He called upon the House of Commons to interpose that
they might not be reduced to that extent. The House of
Commons, he was sure, would do its duty' and he was sure
the no le lord would see that the sentiments which .he ex-
pres: in 1820 were infinitely more politic than those which
he 11,.d lately expressed. He would not trouble the house by
going into statistical details, but would only again express a
hope that ministers would not give this question to that class
of men whom the noble lord had described. (Cheers.)
Sir W. Moleswortn, Mr. Clay, and several other members
here rose together amidst cries of " adjournment. " Sir W.
MOLESWORTH was understood to move the adjournment of
the debate, and it was accordingly adjourned till this day.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.----WEDNESDAY.
The House of Lords did not meet to-day. ,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
In the Commons (after the presentation of many petitions),
Mr. WYSE gave notice that after Easter he should move for
bills on the subject of general education.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON intimated that to-day he should
move for papers. &c., relative to atrocities said to be com-
mitted on board a Portuguese slave ship.
Mr. F. BARING said (in answer to Colonel Perceval's
inquiry) that when the report of the commissioners of
public works (Ireland) was received, and itwas daily expected,
it would be immediately presented to the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that on Friday he should move the
orders of the day regarding the supreme court (Scotland)
bill, and the prisons (Scotland) bill, take precedence of the
other orders of the day.
On the motion of Sir W. MOLESWORTH the adjourned
debate on Mr. Villiers's motion regarding the corn laws was
resumed. After extended discussion, in which Mr. Chris-
topher, Mr. Grote, Lord Darlington; Mr. Clay, and Lord
Howick took part, the debate was adjourned, at one o'clock,
till Thursday.