The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-12-18 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

THE MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COM-
MERCE AND THE CORN LAWS.
( From the Manchester Courier.)
The Manchester Chamber of Commerce have held a
meeting to consider the propriety of petitioning par-
liament for the repeal of the existing corn laws. They
could not agree, however, whether it would be the
wisest course to confine the prayer of their petition to
the removal of restrictions on the importation of grain,
or to include in it the repeal of all protecting duties
whatsoever ; and after much discussion, it was re-
solved to postpone the final decision of the chamber
for a week.
Sorry we were to see arrayed against the landed in-
terest some gentlemen who call themselves conserva-
tives. But for that circumstance we should have pro-
nounced the whole affair a scheme of the whigs to
give a new direction to popular discontent; and to
make the owners of the soil—" the tory aristocracy"—
the objects of that odium which now attaches to the
whig authors of the poor-law. Happily for the coon-
try, their labours, however well intended, will be
thrown away ; anti the agricultural interests will still
be protected in spite of the petitions of the Chamber
of Commerce.
So far as we are able to understand the arguments
of the advocates of free trade, their object is not to
amend the protecting system, but to abolish it altoge-
ther. But does any man in his senses expect, that a
petition praying for a total repeal of all protecting
duties, will he listened to by the legislature ? Even
so lately as the last session, the House of Commons—
the reformed House of Commons—refused, by the
enormous majority of three hundred to ninety jive, to
grant a committee even "to consider" the corn laws.
Is there, then, any probability that the same House of
Commons will listen to a proposition for their total
repeal ? The idea is absurd.
Everybody knows that the principle of affording
protection to native industry runs through the whole
system of our domestic policy ; and a wise, sound
principle it is We need not occupy the time of our
readers by referring in detail to the provisions of the
navigation act, by which the shipping interest is pro-
tected; we shall confine ourselves to the state of the
law as it affects the manufacturing interests of the
empire. It is true the manufacturers of cotton goods
at present stand little in need of protection ; and the
advocates of free trade may, as far as cotton is con-
cerned, safely challenge competition; but still the
principle of protection is observable in legislating
upon the cotton trade. Duties of 10 per cent. upon
foreign manufactured cotton goods, and of 20 per cent.
upon cotton manufactures, " wholly or in part made
up," remain upon the statute book. The manufacture
of silk is protected hem foreign competition by duties
varying from 25 to 30 per cent. ; millinery of silk by
duties equal to 40 per cent. Manufactures of wool are
protected by a duty of 15 per cent. ; and if " wholly
or in part made up," 20 per cent. The linen manu-
factures are protected by duties varying from 2,-Id. to
ls. 6d. the square yard. But it is not merely to the
most important of our Manufactures that protection
from foreign competition is given. There is not a
single article, the produce of British labour, that is
not protected by duties. Manufactures of bras: have
a protection of 30 per cent.; of cast iron, 10 per cent. ;
of wrought iron, 20 per cent. ; steel, 20 per cent. ;
tin, 20 per cent. ; copper, 30 per cent. ; earthenware,
15 per cent. ; glass, by various duties; clock and
watchmakers are protected by duties of 25 per cent. ;
shoemakers are protected by duties ; glovemakers,
straw-hatmakers, artificial flowermakers; in short, as
we have said already, every description of British la-
bour is more or less guarded against foreign competi-
tion.

To deprive these various interests of that protection
which they now possess, and in reliance upon which
manufacturers have been induced to embark their ca-
pitals in their respective concerns, may suit persons
connected with the cotton trade, or merchants who
care for no interests but their own, being mere buyers
and sellers ; but will the legislature listen to such a
proposition ? Will the country join these Manchester
philosophers in their petition We suspect not.
The grand objection to the present corn law is, that
it is injurious to commerce. We have not time nor
space at present to examine all the arguments ad-
vanced to support this position. We confine our-
selves, therefore, to a statement of facts.
Now it appears that the total official value of British
produce and manufactures exported in the years 1815,
1816, and 1817, amounted to £115,721,919, being an
average of £38,573,973 per annum. The total official
value of manufactures and produce exported in 1333,
1836, and 1837, amounted to £235,128,099, being an
average of £78,376,003, or more than double the for-
mer amount. So much for our trade in general. Now
let us see how the cotton trade has been affected by
these terrible laws. The exports of cotton manufac
tures and yarns, in the former period, amounted in
official value to £61,113,327, being an average of
£20,371,109. The amount, according to the same
mode of valuation, in the years 1835, 1836, and 1837,
was £161,852,462, being an average of £53,950,520;
that is an increase of more than thirty-three millions
per annum ; and this is in the face of the corn laws
described as so destructive of our foreign commerce.