The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-02-25 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

THE DO-NOTHING ADMINISTRATION.
(From the Morning Herald of Friday,)
The worthy " representatives of the people of Eng-
land" contrived yesterday to make "no house." Yet
in the affairs of the country—within the range of our
foreign and domestic relations--might be found mate-
rials sufficient to exercise all the legislative wisdom to
which the Lower House of Parliament may fairly pre-
tend.

The financial affairs of the country, for instance—
how do they stand ? Let the discussion, last week,
on Mr. Herries's motion supply the answer; Let the
admission of Lord Melbourne—repeated last night; as
that admission happened to be—that the expenditure of
the country far exceeds its income, be fairly weighed,
and, then, let the public decide, whether the ingenuity
of the gentlemen who deal with the public purse might
not be legitimately exercised, in trying to remove the
disproportion that exists between the national revenue
and the national disbursements. Lord Melbourne, it
is true, seeks to console himself for the admission in
question, by asserting, that, although the expenditure
has increased, the resources of the nation are still un-
impaired ; and-the
.aentiMent of Lord Melbourne on
this subject has been solemnly echoed in the House of
Commons, by Mr. Herries and by Mr. Coulburn.
This talk about unimpaired national resources is, no
doubt, a pleasant topic for party men on both sides;
but how does it consist with the melancholy truth ?
If our resources be. really unimpaired, why is our navy
dismantled ? Why are the coasts of England guarded
by only four ships of the line ? And why is the navy
of England unable (as the First Lord of the Admiralty
has admitted it to be) to cope with the navy of France
or of Russia? If our resources be unimpaired, why
has our commerce in every part of the world been left
recently without protection ? If our resources be un-
impaired, why are the Canadas imperfectly supplied
with English troops, and why is there no effective squa-
dron on the North American station ? If our resources
he unimpaired, why, all that disreputable griping and
grinding which may he witnessed in every part of the
public service? Why have our ablest seamen been
transferred to the service of Russia and of the United
States ? The reason is alleged to be, our inability to
pay these veterans full value for their services; and yet
the men who make that allegation presume, when it
suits their purpose, to declare that the national re-
sources are unimpaired !
If, besides, the great question of our financial con-
dition could be supposed insufficient to absorb all the
time of our Parliamentary representatives, surely in
the state of Canada, in the prospects of Jamaica, in
the perplexed policy of our Indian empire, in the con-
dition of trade, in the disaffection of the labouring
classes, in the treasonable spirit which pervades Roman
Catholic Ireland, enough might he found to furnish
matter of anxious thought to the most comprehensive
intellect that ever devoted itself to the cares of states-
manship. But our honest representatives care for no-
thing but for the most vulgar party squabbles. They
crowd the benches of the house to listen to sharp at-
tack, and to clever recrimination ; and they drink in
with greedy car all that may be denominated the scan-
dal of politics. They delight, too, in that sort of ex-
citement which may be derived from the examination
of helpless witnesses at their bar—witnesses whom
they have, beforehand, resolved to punish. But for
the grave and effective consideration of public affairs,
the representatives of the people of England would
seem to be utterly unfitted. They are, collectively, ig-
norant, feeble, impatient—of grovelling tastes, and
tainted, moreover, by the coarsest and most vulgar
party spirit.
Their disgraceful neglect of public business is a
mockery on the national distress and perplexities. Yet
is the idleness of these men, in some respects, less ob-
jectionable than their activity. When active, they are
generally mischievous. Their great effort during the
present session has been to outrage the law, and insult
the judges of the land. Such a course is naturally
congenial to Mr. O'Connell and his Irish mercenaries;
for whatever may degrade the majesty of English law
must, of necessity, delight the inveterate enemies of
English institutions. But to Mr. O'Connell has not
been left the fitting task of making war upon the high-
est courts of English judicature. nNo :—the leaders of
the conservative party in the'House of Commons have
been eager to place themselves in the foremost rank of
the impugners of the majesty of the law. The con-
servative leaders have set the example of rebellion
against the most valued and most venerable guardians
of the constitution. Truly, " the. times. are • out of
joint." Inauspicious omens, and portents of evil
au-
gury, may be discernable on all sides. 'The court
slights the Duke of Wellington ; and Sir Robert Peel
joins Daniel O'Connell in resisting the supremacy of
the law. •

•
If ought could avail to bring into disrepute the
principle of representative government, the conduct of
the House of Commons, during the brief period of
the present session which has already elapsed, might
tend to effect such a result.

WHAT SHALL WE TA x?
(Front the Bolton Chronicle.)
With a falling revenue, presenting the
gratifying re-
trospect of 52,678,000 deficiency in three and
the no less exhilarating prospect of a future
present
netC
of nearly two millions in the returns of the
,;the
year,
(including three parts of the Postoffice revenue
Whigs are racking the few brains they possess to find
put in what way they are to meet the approaching
emergency. "'What shall we tax ?" is the prevailing
question. ". What shall we tax ?" echoes one hollow
head after another ; " what shall we tax ?" cries the
Secretary for the Colonies ; " what shall we tax ?"
murmurs the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
country, however, closes its ears to the question, and
perversely inquires, iu return—" What taxes, Messrs.
Whig, Radical, and. Co. are you going, to remove, af-
ter all
your promises about " ecooorny; retrenchment,"
and so on, and after holding office long enough to
have perfectly remodelled the old system of govern-
ment, which you cried out against so lustily ? The
people have waited patiently, and are looking anxiously
forward. to the less frequent visitations of the tax-ga-
therer. What are y u
The Cabinet vouchsafe goingto relieve of taxation
no
reply, ?"
but a confused mut-
tering is heard, of which the only intelligent combina-
tion of sounds is—" What shah we tax ?—what shall
• we tax ?"
We have now been at comparative peace for more
than twenty years. Availing themselves
governments
of the peace-
ful prosperity of the kingdom, former
have attempted to relieve the people of those , burdens
which the late war imposed. The Duke of v
ton, in three years, liquidated Twenty Millions of
of the
ening-
debt. What have the whigs done ? Have they had to
contend with any pecuniary difficulties? Hav e they
reduced the debt ? Quite the reverse : they have ang_
inented it. Has the amount of the average income
diminished ? No, on an average it exceeds the income
of former years. How, then is a deficiency produced
y an increase in our expenditure. What ! in time of
peace, with whigs in office, and the following motto
hanging_ over the door-way of the Treasury—"PkOnOrny
and Retrenchment ?" Such is the case, and the pre-
sent y
Soear seems littleadapted to improve the condition
of the exchequer.much for whig management.
But again the sound is heard—" What shall we tax?"
Mr. Baring, it is said, has suggested a re-imposition of
the duty on salt ! What a wise,
tous subject ! A revenue of
and politic, and felici-
admillion and a half was once
an wrung from that useful necessary article, but the
duty has lour, iL
been withdrawn. Let Northwich look
to it. Is there" nothing that comes less " home" to
every man than salt ? Lord Spencer, it may be remem-
bered, after much cogitation and frequentconsultations
with the political economists, took Otr for the benefit
of the people, the duties upon those pleasant
ro-
mantic articles---tiles and shepherds' -dogs.
Can
e eii'teke
tiles too brittle to resume their burden? •
herds' dogs no longer bark with a tax on their bard ;
Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer turn himself to
the consideration of the roost productive source of
revenue; let him compel itinerant political lecturers to
take out a license, like other hawkers of damaged
goods ; let him imposo a tat upon humbug; let the

EDINBURGH, 17th February, 1840.
SIR,—As you liberally opened your colums lately for my
defence of agriculture, I think it hut right to show you, that
your conduct has not been without approval. The London
Morning Herald has postponed many other things, doubt-
less, to publish my two very long letters ; so has the Nor-
thampton Herald, SO the. LIVERPOOL. STANDARD. More
may have followed the example, but I am not aware of it.
Almost at the same instant, the Manchester Guardian pub-
lished a long and excellent letter on the same side of the
question, by a person evidently unbiassed by any private in-
terest ; and as he writes from the very centre of the present
discontent, perhaps you will think a few observations from
him very proper to be presented to your readers :
" The leaders in the anti-corn law movement (he says)
profess to have two objects in view. First, a reduction in
the price of bread ; and, second, an improvement in our
foreign trade. Now, as Ido not believe that a repeal of the
corn-laws would effect either the one or the other of these
objects, I shall adduce such evidence on both these points as
I deem sufficient to establish this opinion.
" A recent number of the • Anti-Corn-Law Circular,' in
addressing the working classes, promises bread sixty per
cent. cheaper, as the result of successful agitation. If we
ascertain the average price of wheat in this country for a
given number of years, and the average for the same years in
some of the principal markets of the continent, adding to
the latter the cost of conveyance to this country, we shall be
able to make an approximately correct estimate of the differ-
ence in price which free importation might cause. The
average price in England for the seven years ending with
1838 was 525. 2d. ; the average of Dantzic wheat for the same
period, 325. 4d. ' • and the cost of, bringing Dantzic wheat to
this country, including freight, insurance, waste, loading and
unlading, and allowing for an extra number of profits, with
which it is necessarily burdened, may be taken at 20s. 9d.
These ,data being correct, and the whole host of repealers
cannot prove them otherwise, we have a demonstration
clear as light, that foreign wheat cannot be sold in England,
except at a price which, in the average of a number of years,
is eleven hence per quarter dearer than our home-grown
produce.'
He gives the details establishing these facts from authori-
ties relied on by the repealers themselves, but which, occu-
pying considerable space, must be taken for granted here. ,
A question will at once arise—lf the difference is so trivial,'
or rather is against the continent, why not admit its pro-
duce without restraint ? And the answer, I conceive, is
this, that though, in the long run, this is the state of things,
our agriculture might be so injured in years of particular
plenty abroad, as to leave it wholly inadequate to assist
efficiently, when the continental supply should fail ; and by
one year of "famine price," the profits of many years might
be swept away. . .
" It is said (continues this writer), that repeal would com-
pel the landowners to reduce their rents. But such an
effect cannot be anticipated ; and so enormous have been the
exaggerations of the advocates of repeal, that if the land-
owners were to relinquish all claims to rent, the difference
which it would cause in the price of produce, would not be
equal to the reduction anticipated from the repeal of the
corn laws. Most erroneous notions are prevalent as to the
amount of rent with which lands are burdened. At the
borough meeting on the corn laws, held a few weeks ago, a •
speaker who takes a prominent place in the present move-
ment stated, that the land-owners of this country are enabled,
by means of the corn-laws, to pocket forty millions more of
the public money than their just rights. But the truth is,
that the aggregate rent of all the land in England and
Wales amounts only to twenty-nine and a-half million*.
The correctness of this may be verified by reference to
M'Culloch's " Statistics of the British Empire," or any
other respectable authority ; and it is rather puzzling to find
out how we can be cheated to the amount of forty millions,
by parties whose claims and exactions, just and unjust,
amount only to twenty-nine and a-half ! It is easy to point
out the error of the calculator. Ile stated that the present
laws enhance the price of all the corn used in England, as
much as eight shillings per quarter, and this gross assump-
tion was the foundation of his erroneous estimate !" So that
these repealers first assume as a fact something exactly op-
posite to the fact, and then cearge the landowners of England
with deriving an unjust advantage, exceeding by eleven or
twelve millions all their advantages together !
One consequence of writing these papers, and putting my
name to them, has been, that they have procured me many
intelligent and, I am disposed to say, valued correspondents.
One whose letter has been by me just two days, and who is
an EXTENSIVE MANUFACTURER, admits the perfect justice
of many of my positions ; and adds, that, " other causes
than the price of agricultural produce, even supposing it en-
hanced by the corn-laws, (which he admits is not proved)
exist—amply sufficient to weigh down the cotton business.
" It is possible," he continues, " that the general prosperity
which the corn duties may cause, in the field of agriculture,
may be an absolute benefit, or at least a benefit equal to their
burden ;" which is exactly what we contend. He then adverts
to the direct duty on cotton, which I only slightly noticed ;
admits that that the duties on dyewoods, indigo. B:.c. are con-
, siderable. Every one must admit that all such duties on ex-
portable industry are calculated to narrow the market for it,
and depress the profits ; and consequently that, at any sacri-
fice, they ought to be repealed—for all such duties have well
been denominated " suicidal."
But duty on cotton ! (says the repealer of the corn-laws)
what is it ?. . Five-sixteenths of a penny per pound ! The
following, extracted from a radical paper (the Carlisle Jour-
nal of Jan. 25,) is perhaps more worthy of attention :—" The
evil of this obnoxious tax," says that journal, " will be easi-
est understood by showing its operation in our own locality.
Most of our readers are aware that the great bulk of the
cotton goods manufactured in Carlisle is for the foreign mar-
ket, and that much of the yarn spun here is exported to
Ham bu rgh, and finds its way to most of the German markets.
The quantity of cotton used in the mills in and around Car-
lisle may be estimated (we are assured by those well acquaint-
ed with the business) at 100,0001bs per week. Now, it is to
be borne in mind, that the tax is levied upon the raw cotton,
as it is imported, . and before it can be spun, it has to
undergo various dressings to clear it of sand, dirt, &c.;
then there is . a considerable waste in spinning, weaving,
&c., so that, before the cotton is manufactured into cloth,
the tax actually levied amounts to something more than a
halfpenny in the pound, being nearly one-half the amount
paid to the spinner for his labour, on the yarn most usually
manufactured in Carlisle. With the aid of Cocker, we find
that a halfpenny per pound on 100,000 lbs. amounts to more
than £2OO sterling per week upon the cotton used in Car-
lisle," (it is very nearly £207, or £10,754 a-year) " which is
just so much extracted from the wages of labour; for as our
goods have to go into the foreign market, in competition
with goods produced in countries where no such suicidal im-
post is levied as a tax on raw material, it follows that either
the manufacturers' profits must be reduced below what will
tempt the capitalist to go on, or the difference must be taken
from the wages of the operative. Then, in addition to cheap
corn, they have also untaxed cotton to put in competition
with cotton taxed to half the amount of wages paid for work-
ing it into yarn!"
Such is the effect of the tax on raw cotton • and such, in a
greater or less degree, must be the effect of the tax on dyes,
and every expense entering into the products of exportable
industry. The opponents of the protection of agriculture
will here turn round, and include what they call the bread-
' tax. But, first, I have shown that even now the protection
of agriculture in this country does not enhance the price of
bread, but most certainly lessens it, by adding all the agri-
cultural produce of Great Britain, exceeding the mainte-
nance of her agriculturists, to the agricultural produce of
the world ; while every year our agriculture is improving.
Next; I contend that if it slid enhance the price of bread, it
greatly diminishes that of inure essential articles, by adding
almost incalculably to the amount of butcher's meat of every
description ; vegetables of every description ; leather, tallow,
and wool, the great ingredients of living, clothing, cleaning,
and light. These are points that cannot any longer be blink-
ed. They are now becoming universally acknowledged. In
a subsequent paper I will show this, in a manner that cannot
be doubted. I shall also have much pleasure in being the
humble instrument of bringing before the public the views
of some men, themselves deeply interested in the prosperity
of manufactures, but sensible that, without the nourishment
afforded by an extensive and prosperous agriculture, they
must labour comparatively in vain. This is the thing want-
ed—to UNITE OUR INTERESTS, not to dissever them: and
by that means to maintain the wealth of the country at its
present height, and through that its capabilities of exertion,
instead of pouring out our capital for corn, to have to seek it
again by commerce ; losing it in torrents, to be regained
through many small and doubtful channels.—Your's, very
respectfully, D. BAIN.