The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-10 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 10, 1849.

THE ability of Sir Robert Peel, as a parliamen-
tary gladiator, has always been more remarkable
than his wisdom, and consistency, as a statesman.
Never, during the course of a long career in his
favourite arena, the House of Commons, was the
former quality more eminently displayed than in
his speech, on Friday night, on Mr. Disraeli's
motion on the state of the nation. Sir Robert ex-
hausted the question on the side of Free Trade.
If our present policy was capable of defence—if
the public; could be blinded to the evidence; daily
presented to their own eyes, of its utter failure—
his consummate tact and ingenuity, would effect
the object. Happily for the cause of truth, how-
ever, even his talent cannot distort facts, and twist
reasoning, without the disengenuousness being
detected. We shall briefly direct the attention of
our readers to a few portions of this great effort,
in which we conceive are false statements, and con-
clusions, which completely undermine the imposing
fabric, which the ingenious architect persuades
himself that he has erected upon them.
_ _

Sir Robert maintains that Free Trade has had
nothing to do with the existing and recent suffer-
ing amongst the commercial and industrial classes ;
and especially that free-trade in corn can have had
no such effect, even upon the agricultural interests,
because the Corn Laws were in existence up to Feb-
ruary in the present year. He maintains also that
the more we import of foreign food and luxuries
the better it is for the national weal. We must in
fairness, however, quote his own words. He says,
with respect to ris first position : _ _ _

" And now observe, with respect to the repeal of the
corn law, that did not take place until the Ist of February,
1849, (hear, hear)—and from necessity, in 1847 you
repealed the duties, and the hon. member for Dersetshire
seconded the motion for their repeal. But during nearly
the whole of 1848 you had a duty of about Bs. or 10s. on
foreign corn, and, consequently, if there have ensued any
evil effects from the repeal of the corn law, you cannot
date them from an earlier period than the Ist of Feb.,
1849; and the protection. as long as you thought it, expe-
dient to retain it, lasted up to the Ist of February, 1849."
(Hear, hear.)
It is very eisingenuous to urge this admitted
fact upon us, and to omit another, viz., that dur-
ing a portion of this period the Corn Laws were
practically abolished. Our ports were thrown open ;
and we had introduced into the country grain to
the value of thirty millions sterling, for which we
paid in gold. Had that foretaste of Free Trade in
corn no influence in producing commercial and
industrial suffering ? We can all remember its
result in the annihilation of millions of the realized
property of the nation; the prostration of trade;
panic, bankruptcy, and universal distress, from
which at this moment we are only slowly recover-
ing. Sir Robert proceeds to his next point, viz.,
to show that increased imports must of necessity
benefit the country. He says :--
" 1 challenge you to show me in what it is possible that
the free trade introduced into the tariff can have caused
the distress of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let us refer
to the official value of the imports into Great Britain in
1848, and compare it with that of 1846. In the latter
year the official value of the imports was £73,000,000, and
the official value of 1848 was £89,000,000. Some con-
tend that it is the amount of imports, without any corre-
sponding amount of exports, which has caused the de-
pression of industry in this country. Let us then analyze
these imports, and consider of what this tariff consists.
I divide it into three great branches. First, I take the
articles of consumption—the food, the luxuries—the
articles which the people eat and drink. I next take the
raw materials, and next the manufactured goods. Your
argument is that the amount of the manufactured goods
which under the operation of free trade have been im-
ported into this country has interfered with domestic
industry, and caused many laborious and industrious per-
sons to lose their trade. Let us divide the imports of
1848, amounting in value to £89,000,600, into the heads
I have referred to—viz., articles of consumption, raw
materials, and manufactured goods. The amount in
official value of the articles of consumption imported was
not less than £32,500,000. Will any man tell me that
be grudges the payment of any one single pound of that
money for articles of consumption ?—(Hear.) What
have those articles been done with ? (Hear, hear.) They
have been imported, they have been paid for, and they
have been eaten by some one or other.—(Cheers.) Can
you deny any one of these three propositions, that the
articles in question have been imported, paid for, and
consumed ?—(Hear, bear.) And how paid for ? By gold,
I suppose I shall be told.—(Hear, hear.) It has been
argued that if you permit these free imports there will be
a great derangement of the currency ; that the foreigner
will not take our manufactured goods in return, but will
insist on payment in gold, and consequently the currency
will be disturbed ; the reserve in the bank will be with-
drawn, and there will be a constant and enormous exhaust-
ing process going forward. There will be imports, it is
true; but, as a necessary consequence of those extrava-
gant imports, there will be a constant exportation of gold,
and an appreciation of the currency. But the bank bad
at that time ten millions of gold, and now it has fifteen
millions. How happens it then that, concurrently with
this great increase of imports, there has been, at the same
time, no diminution of gold ; but, in consequence of the
state of the exchanges, an accumulation, an increase of
gold ?" . . _

Let us test this argument. We imported in 1848
in money value £16,000,000 more than in 1846. Sir
Robert justly contemplates that he will be reminded
that these products were paid for in gold. Was
the process an innocuous one? Why, it cost us to
pay these sixteen millions, which were temporarily
abstracted from our currency, a sacrifice of a hun-
dred or two millions. It swept away a third from

the marketable value of every railway share, every
mine, every farm, and other description of property
and produce in the kingdom. It threw the banker,
the merchant, the small trader, and the artizan into
one common mass of suffering and confusion.
But the gold ultimately came back again, we are
told. "The bank had in 1846 ten millions in
gold, and now it has fifteen millions." In October
1847, however, the bank had little more than one
million ; and was within 24 hours of insolvency.
All Threadneedle Street would have been appealed
to in vain to discount Sir Robert's own acceptance.
Now, we have got the gold back, however; but by
what process ? We have had to give five and twenty
shillings in British labour for every sovereign ! We
have been compelled to " slaughter" our goods in
every foreign market to bring back this precious
metal. It has come to us to be invested in our
depreciated funds and railway shares. Even the
disturbances on the Continent, which are urged as
having caused a large portion of the national suf-
fering, have aided us in restoring the equilibrium
of our disturbed currency.
The worthy baronet proceeds in the jocular line :
" Who have consumed this £32,500,000 worth of eatable
and drinkable materials ? (Hear, hear.) Who grudges
the expenditure? Has there been any case of surfeit?
(Cheers and laughter.) Ts the cholera attributable to that
consumption, or have disease and suffering been entailed
in consequence of this increase of imports? (Hear, hear.)
I believe not ; but, on the contrary, I believe that the
whole of these imports and the consumption of them have
contributed to tl.e material comfort of the people. and that
it would have been a public misfortune if this £32,000.000
worth of imports had been by any process reduced to
£22,000,000 or £25,000,000 worth. (Cheers.)"
The reductio ad absurdum is palpable here. The
potato rot, which compelled us to import more
grain, was a benefit after all ! A man to be com-
fortable ought not to grow his own cabbages, but
buy them from the greengrocer.
We proceed now to an instance of Sir Robert's
unfair mode of treating his case, or rather of mis-
representing that of his opponent. He remarks :
" It is said, we cannot fight hostile tariffs with free im-
ports. That is an epigrammatic way of stating the case.
But the hon. gentleman, the rember for Buckinghamshire,
says also, that the only way we can encounter hostile tariffs
is by countervailing duties. Let me dispassionately and
closely examine this position. If it applies to this country,
it may apply to Russia, France, and the United States as
well. Take the United States. The United States im-
poses duties on our manufactures, say 20 per cent. on our
cotton goods ; and, admitting that we maintain a not very
successful competition in the markets of the United States,
what course are we to take ? We must, it is said, have
countervailing duties on America. Would it be wise to
have a high duty on raw cotton ? (Cheers.) What good
should we gain ? The complaint is on the part of the
English cotton manufacturer. He says, ' I meet the
United States manufacturer in neutral markets I meet
him in his own market ; but in the neutral markets I
maintain my ground. What is the course I should take ?
Impose countervailing duties on the produce of America'
—that is, chiefly on raw materials, and no doubt cotton
will be among the foremost. Will you tell me how you
favour the manufacturer by imposing a duty upon his
cotton ?"
Did any man, the most ultra among the protec-
tionists, ever dream of retaliating upon America by
taxing the only article of hers which we cannot do
without ? Sir Robert must have known that he
was here fighting with a shadow of his own
creation ; and he is little more ingenuous in the
following application of the doctrines of political
economy to the case of the agriculturist :
" Dr. Adam Smith illustrates the great truths of poli-
tical economy by the case of individuals. He says the
tailor does not make his own shoes. but finds it more con-
y( nient to buy them from a man who can make them bet-
ter *Di cheaper than he. Nor does the shoemaker make