The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-07-10 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

THE CORN LAWS.
( From the Morning Herald.)
The evening contemporary, to whose attacks on the
corn laws we replied at some length, yesterday, com-
plains, that, in our article, we attempted merely to
point out certain discrepancies between the arguments
employed by him, and the arguments employed by
other oracles of free trade,—instead of confining our-
selves to a refutation of his own peculiar reasonings.
We, certainly, did refer to the discrepancies in ques-
tion ; but we also pointed out the utter unsoundness
of our contemporary's views. If, however, we are
again called on to slay the slain, our consolation must
be, that the task is not a difficult one.
The following is our contemporary's case in his own
words:—
" The abolition of the corn laws would place a greater
quantity of food at the command of our capitalists and manu-
facturers than at present. They would enter with the foreign
manufacturer, into competition for coin in the cheapest
foreign market, and would enhance its price to him. It he
did not actually equalise the prices which they and the foreign
manufacturer, would have to pay for food, it would have that
tendency, and would place the two more nearly on a level
than at present. At the same time our manufacturers would
compete with oneauot her for corn in the home market much
less keenly, and they would in both markets get more corn
for their money than at present. Obtaininr, more corn for
their money, they would have an increased demand for la-
bour, and would give more than at present of the increased
quantity of corn which they obtained to the labourers. We
do not pretend to conjecture in what proportions the in-
creased quantity of food at a lower price, which would come
under the command of the capitalist, would be divided be-
tween profit and wages; but we have no doubt whatever,
that the abolition of the corn laws would augment both.
Supposing that the reduction in the price of corn should
only be 10 per cent., 2 or 3 per cent., or 5 per cent. would
be a rich reward to a manufacturer on his large capital, and
an addition of 5 per cent. to the wages of labour would be a
great boon to all the labouring classes."
Let us weigh these various propositions in suc-
cession.
" The abolition of the corn laws would place a greater
quantity of food at the command of our capitalists and manu-
facturers than at present.
The abolition of the corn laws would place cheaper
food at the disposal of our capitalists, titan they can
obtain at present—and, by consequence, " a greater
quantity," for their own personal purposes, of that
cheaper food ;—but if our contemporary means to insi-
nuate, that it is an object of the free traders to abolish
the corn laws, for the sake of securing "a greater
quantity of food" to the British labourer, titan the
British labourer now enjoys, our contemporary must
be suffering under some sad confusion of ideas.—
Cheaper food for workmen is the great object of our
free traders, but not a greater quantity of that cheap
food ! The price of labour, let it be recollected, may
he enhanced as much by increasing the quantity of
cheap food, as by increasing the price of the customary
quantity ;—and dear labour is an abomination in the
eyes of a free-trade philosopher. Cheaper food—and
not a larger, but a smaller quantity of it, as the re-
ward of labour—these are the results to which the ene-
mies of native industry look from a repeal of the corn
laws. If the quantity of cheap food awarded to the
labourer should increase, the repeal of the corn laws
would not serve the purposes of the parties who cla-
mour for their abolition!
Our contemporary proceeds :
"Our capitalists would enter with the foreign manufacturer,
into competition for corn in the cheapest foreign market,
and would enhance its price to him. At the same time, our
manufacturers would compete with one another for corn in the
home market much less keenly, and they would in both markets
get more corn for their money than at present."
A repeal of thecorn laws would, undoubtedly, "en-
hance the price" of corn to the foreign manufacturer,
until a greater breadth of corn land could, in continen-
tal countries, be brought into cultivation. But how
would such "enhancement of price" benefit the la-
bouring classes of England; for it is,be it recollected,
of the labourer's interest in this matter, that we are
attempting to take cognizance ? The " enhancement
of the price" of foreign corn might, undoubtedly, in-
crease the misery of the manufacturing poor in foreign
countries—might lead to a diminution in their daily
supplies of food, and to an extension of the periods of
their daily labour, as well as to an increased use of
that machinery, which neither hungers nor thirsts ;
but all these changes could have no other effect on the
English labourer's condition, than to make him more
miserable, by increasing the intensity of the compe-
tition, to which he would be exposed. Not only would
the increase of toil to the foreign labourer, consequent
on an "enhanced price" of foreign corn, act, directly,
in a most unfavourable manner, on the English la-
bourer; but mark the concomitant and indirect causes
of misery which are to be brought to bear upon his
condition ! " At the same time, our manufacturers
would compete with oneanother for corn, in the home
market, much less keenly." But is English corn grown
without the intervention of English labour ? And if
the competition for English corn is to become "much
less keen," must not the competition for English la-
bour become "much less keen" also? And English
labourers are called on to rejoice at this prospect!
They are called on to rejoice at the prospect of being
shut out from the field, where their labour commands
the highest price, and at being compelled to enter upon
a career of boundless competition with foreign labour:
era, whose poverty and degraded habits enable them
easily to undersell the labourers of more civilised
countries! The complaint urged, be it remembered,
by the free-traders against English agriculture, is, that
it is too costly—in other words, that English agri-
cultural labourers are too highly paid ;—and the
free-traders, while they are moving heaven and
earth to close this best of all possible markets against
the English labourer, have the modesty to require the
English labourer's thanks, for the kind service which
they are rendering to him.
In the same spirit, our contemporary proceeds to
observe, that, "our capitalists obtaining more corn
• for their money, would have an increased demand for
labour, and would give more than at present of the
increased quantity of corn which they obtained, to the
labourers."
Let us admit, for the moment, that the introduction
of cheaper corn might bring with it, in certain quar-
ters, "an increased demand for labour," is it not ob.
sinus, that the means by which the cheaper corn in
question is to be procured—the repeal, viz., of the
corn laws—will give to our manufacturers, at the same
time, a greater command of labour, inasmuch as one-
half, at least, of our agricultural population will be
compelled to accept of employment in towns on any
terms. The increased demand for labour could not, in
fact, bear any proportion to the increased supply
of labour;—and the result would be, that the " in-
creased demand for labour" would resolve itself into
the exaction of an increased amount of daily toil from
the labourer, in exchange for a smaller daily quantity
of cheapened food !
It may, here, be worth while to analyse the mean-
ing of sonic of the phrases employed by our contern•
porary! Our capitalists, he states, "obtaining more
corn for their money, would have an increased demand
for labour, and would give more than at present of
the increased quantity of corn to the labourers." But
capitalists seek to obtain more corn for their money,
chiefly, because the "more corn" is convertible into a
larger quantity of labour ! The phrase, therefore,
means, that in the circumstances supposed, capitalists
would obtain more labour in exchange for their money
—and that seems but an indifferent reason (even as-
suming an increased demand for labour) why labour
should be paid a higher price. The statement, in fact,
is as purely logical as if it had taken this form :—the
price of labour depends upon the price of food. The
price of food will, in certain circumstances, be cheap-
ened—and with the price of food, the price of labour;
but, because the price of labour is sure to sink, there-
fore the buyers of labour will give more isexchange
for it!
Our contemporary, it will be perceived, proceeds to
indulge in visions of the prosperity which must bless
the nation as soon as the corn laws shall be repealed.
The manufacturer is to receive increased profits to the
extent of two or three per cent., whilst the labourer is
to come in for an increase of five per cent. in the
amount of his wages ! Such anticipations may be
pleasant, but they are startling ! How strange to be
told by free-traders that the repeal of the corn laws
will increase wages five per cent, when the alleged
highness in the rate of wages is the very reason for
urging the repeal of these laws ! Nor less startling
is the prophecy of increased profits to manufacturers,
when we bear in mind that a repeal of the corn latvt—
the measure from which these increased profits are to
flow—must in the nature of things destroy the Eng-
lish manufacturer's home market—that market which,
in a healthy state of society, must be worth to him all
other markets taken together.
"Wait of space prevents us from following our con-
.t:."DP'3„,.._
_my into his denunciations of landowners and
p
:lum-
'Mete, because (as he alleges) these classes
ltd elk the labour of others"—and, because, there-
fore, there are no two classes of men "more useless
ithanaref,";:rieven more noxious to the general wel-
hall only observe, that these are danger-
ous topics to bp urged too far by an advocate of ma-
nufactusing.,ind
.commercial schemers. Capital, we
incline to belie ye,
ti it is not A ~00es not drop from the clouds—and,
mOT)Le9, from 1‘ the labour of others" than

the capitalist himself, we must confess ourselves at a
roes to account for its existence.

We have thus, we believe, shown (at greater length
than we intended) that the repeal of the corn laws
would deeply injure the lot of the English labour—
would ruin the English landowner and farmer—and
would not, in the long run, improve the condition of
the manufacturing capitalist himself, inasmuch as a
repeal of the corn laws would deprive the English ma-
nufacturer of his most profitable customers.

INDECENT AND BLASPHEMOUS CONDUCT
OF O'CONNELL DURING THE CORONATION

CEREMONY.
(From the Manchester Courier.)
The folldwing curious letter is printed in the Times
of Thursday :