The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-12 00:00:00

~
of indifference whether that Droteetion was given in the shape
of a fixed duty or by means of a sliding scale.
Mr. GISBORNE, as a practical farmer, said that improve-
ments in agriculture lessened the quantity of corn produced,
for corn was, in fact, the rudest of agricultural productions.
He had carefully observed the course pursued by Sir R. Peel
since his accession to power, and found him in the abstract
adopting all the principles of free trade, and applying them
soundly, to a certain extent, in the new tariff. He was sorry
that a government so strong as that of the right hon. baro-
net's should stop short in its career, and decline to carry its
principles any further. Mr. Gladstone had referred to
2,000,000 quarters of corn lying at New Orleans at 225. per
quarter, by which, if the corn laws were repealed, the agri-
culturists of this country would be swamped. But surely the
commercial experience of the right hon. gentleman should
have taught him that the first symptom of a demand would
so far raise the prices that long before the 2.000.000 quarters
were exhausted, it would prove to be no profitable venture to
attempt to swamp, by its importation, the agriculturists of
England. He supported the motion of Mr. Villiers, confi-
dent that the adoption of the principles of free trade would be
as beneficial to the farmer as to any other class in the com-
munity.

Mr. COLCIIIHOUN contended that there must have been
great improvements in agriculture, or the produce could not
have increased as it had done during the last 30 years. In
the year 1801 the produce of 10,000 acres of land supported
4,300, whereas in 1836 the same quantity of the same soil
maintained 5,500. Was not this a proof that agriculture
had improved, and that the improvements had rendered the
land more productive. He thought that discussion upon this
subject of the corn laws was useful, for discussion would lead
to truth ; but it should be discussion divested of all per.
sonality, and kept within bounds, which he regretted had
been exceeded by the members of the Anti-Corn-Law
League. He commented upon the language used by Mr.
Cobtlea, defending the aristocracy from the odium which
that hon. gentleman had cast upon them in his speeches at
anti-corn-law meetings.
Lord Howtex did not approve of the form of the motion
before the house, for he was in favour of a small fixed duty,
not as a protection to agriculture, but because he thought a
moderate fixed duty would be the best solution of the diffi-
culty which agitated the country on the subject of the corn
law. He was, however, not the less prepared to vote for the
motion before the house, for he had the strongest possible
feeling that the existing corn law should be repealed; but if
that resolution should be successful, he would be then pre-
pared to move a small fixed duty. And even should he be
defeated on that motion, he would still be prepared to adopt
the alternative of free trade. He wished also to have it un-
derstood, that although now willing to assent to the compro-
mise of a fixed duty, he was not prepared to say how long
he should continue of that opinion ; for the progress of
events was so rapid, that public opinion might very quickly
reach a point at which even such a compromise would be no
longer tolerated.
Mr. BtaexsToNTE expressed the pleasure he felt at the
speech of Mr. Gladstone on the previous evening, which was
no longer in the strain of unqualified approbation of the
principles of free trade, and then contended at some length
for the necessity of protecting the agriculture of the country.
He referred to the meeting at Hertford some short time
since, at which the farmers had voted for a repeal of the
corn laws, and said he believed the statement to be true, but
that it was the result of a feeling that the alterations made
by the government during last session of parliament had
caused the farmers to despair, and they were willing at once
to see the end ofthe matter in order to know what to do. It
proved, and he deeply regretted it, that the farmers were re-
solved to act for themselves, and this should be a deep lesson
to her Majesty's ministers.
Mr. WALLACE said the •speech of Mr. Blackstone was a
manly and a true one, and such as he had never before
heard from the ministerial side of the house. The people
were in a state of distress, and wanted food ; but, instead of
bread, the gentlemen on the ministerial side of the house
were seeking to feed them upon old-fashioned and musty
statistics. He would be no party to any juggle for a fixed
duty—he would not vote for it, first, because he thought it
ought not to be, and, secondly, because he thought he could
not get it. Still, the corn-law was doomed; and no very
distant day would see the termination of its existence.
Mr. A. CAMPBELL said he should have been happy if Sir
R. Peel had gone a little further in his measures of free trade
last year, for he thought it scandalous that butcher's meat
should have been at the enormous price of Bd. and 9d. per
lb. He was not afraid of a repeal of the corn-laws, although
every shilling he had was derived from land ; but he was
opposed to an immediate change, which might be productive
of much evil.
Mr. BORTHWICK then moved the adjournment of the
debate, which was immediately agreed to, and the house
adjourned.