The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-03 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, FEB. 3, is kG.

It is really astonishing to observe how effectually
some men can blind themselves not only to the na-
tural consequences of their own acts, but even to
the interpretation to be put upon the professed de-
signs of others. Some animals, we know, when
menaced by their hunters, conceal their heads, and
then imagine themselves in security; and there are
legislators, and othe: men, possessed of intellect
sufficient in ordinary matters, who, when party,ob-
jects are to he advanced, and party predilections to
be indulged, possess the same weakness as the less
noble branches of the creation ; who will not,—to
use a somewhat vulgar but expressive phrase,—
"look beyond their noses." Amongst this class
of wilfully blind creatures, we place a late Whig
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who rejoices in the
title of Lord Monteagle, and is thus enabled to
vent his absuOities in the upper chamber of the
legislature.
In the debate in the House of Lords, on Thurs-
day night, Lord Ashburton, a high authority, one
would imagine, advanced the following remarks
upon the policy of ministers
•` A free trade, if it could be established, was common
sense; but the question was how to establish a system of
free trade in a country having such complicated interests
and so artificial a system of trade as this country possessed.
having other conntres with equally artificial systems of
trade fencing and fie•ltting against the system of this coup-
try in every possible way, and the people of this country
having a debt of £800,000,000 upon their shou'ders. If
they could establish a system of free trade, he agreed that
it would be consistent with common sense. The noble
earl had said nothing about the article of lea amonest
those which he had enumerated, and from which millions
of revenue were derived.. This was an article of consump-
tion which the British farmer required, who had to enter
into competition with others who obtained tea at one-third
the price that he did. If they had tree trade, how were
they to maintain their credit and pay their debt? They
must maintain all these charges for revenue. The noble
earl contended that it was an imputation on the British
farmer to say that he could not meet the farmers of other
countries.' He (Lord Ashburton) agreed in that; but the
British farmer must not have his hands lied behind him.
Did he meet the foreigner on equal terms? The farmer
on the shores of the Baltic had his labour at 61. a-day to
compete with the farmer of this country with his labour at
2s. a-day. It required no skill in political economy to
discover that these two parties did not meet each other
on equal terms."
There are few, even amongst the leaguers them-
selves, who will be hardy enough to deny the jus-
tice of these remarks. They apply equally to the
farmer and to other classes of producers. If we
are to submit the industry of the country to the
ordeal of competition with the industry of other
countries, we must _not " tie its hands." A man
cannot fight in fetters. It is the overweight in pro-
portion to the strength to bear it, which decides the
race.

Lord Monteagle, however, cannot recognize this
doctrine. He is self-bewildered amongst the ques-
tions of protective duties and duties for revenue.
In replying, or rather in attempting to reply, to the
above, Lord Mouteagle says:—
"They might argue that the revenue duties upon tea
and tobacco were too high—that they had passed the
maximum point of productiveness—but, until we were
producers of tea in this country, and by free trade we
could be producers of tobacco likewise, the tea and to-
bacco duties could have no more relation to the doctrine
of free trade then had the state of our foreign relations at
the present moment in India or elsewhere. (Hear, hear.)
We cannot see how free trade is to enable us to
become " producers of tobacco." It is to do great
things, no doubt; but scarcely this. To come,
however, to the article of tea, the high duty upon
which Lord Monteagle says does not militate against
the principle of free trade, or come within the
scope of the opponents of protection, we must con-
tend that his lordship i 4 perversely blind. The tea
and tobacco duties, he argues, are revenue duties ;
and will, we presume, remain so, and remain intact,
until we become producers of those articles ; aster
which, we are to deduce from his argument, that
they will be condemned by our theorists. But have
the league never included these in their catalogue of
restrictions upon extended intercourse with foreign
nations? Undoubtedly they have. We have been
told that tea is the principle article with which
China can furnish us as a return for our exports ;
and that we must cheapen it and increase its con-
sumption in this country to enable China to increase
her imports of our goods. The decrease of the
duty upon tobacco has been urged upon the same
grounds, and also upon the ground that it enters
largely into the comforts of the working man.
Neither Lord Monteagle, nor the ministry, must be
allowed to mislead themselves by the notion that
they are dealing only with protective duties. They
are dealing with the customs revenue of the country.
They are bidding for an increase in the consump-
tion in this country, of every species of foreign
produce, or manufacture, which can be made avail-
able, and profitable, as a return for exported Bri-
tish commodities. And moreover, they are driving
us, by another course—the necessity, insisted upon
by Mr. Baring, of every class, which is called upon
to enter upon the race of competition, being enabled
to do so " without having its hands tied behind its
back," to sweep away, bit by bit, every duty levied
upon articles imported, whether for revenue or for
the protection of home manufactures. The league,
on the one hand, will insist upon its bond; the con-
sumer and the labourer, on the other hand, will
have and ought to have theirs.
As a proof that the stone once set a-rolling cannot
readily be arrested, and that the demand for further
reductions of duties is not likely to he confined to
any class or to any party, we beg to direct attention
to our report, in another column, of a meeting of
the East India and China Association of Liverpool,
held on Thursday, to demand from Sir Robert Peel's
Government a reduction of the duty upon tea.
SUrely no minister, entertaining the opinions sviih
respect to the advantages of free trade which Sir
Robert Peel has expressed, can long resist such
arguments as the following coming from a Conser-
vative merchant, Mr. Nicol. Referring to the great
and increasing export of manufactures to China, as
pointed out in a former memorial from the associa-
tion to government, Mr. Nicol remarked, that
"If adequate returns could be found, they could
scarcely know the limit to the export of the manufactures
of this country, but that the trade was very much shac-
kled in finding returns and confined almost to silk and
tea; it was pointed out that the high duty on tea acted as
a great check to the consumption, and also to the returns
they bad for their manufactures ; 'hey pointed out that an
important reduction in duty would lead to a vast increase
in the consumption, and that, consequently, the revenue
would be little, if at all, injured by it, or if injured, i
would be only for a short time. They went upon general
principles, snail as guided men in large efforts, and they
expected the statements would have met with some atten-
tion from Sir Robert Peel ; but not only had they been
passed over altogether without notice, but he introduced
a great number of paltry trifling things, the reduction of
the duty on which would do a great deal more harm than
good. One of the strongest arguments was, that China
bad reduced the amount of duty on British manufactures,
not exceeding five per cent. over head, but still the duties
were left on the productions of China. How did the
matter stand, on the other hand, as regarded Russia ?
In Russia the duty was exceedingly high. One gentleman
said he believed it to be sixpence a pound cn manufac-
tured twist, wkereas in China it was only a halfpenny.
Yet Russia, where his duty amounted to 100 per cent.,
had his greatest consideration."
There is both sound sense and sterling justice in
these observations, and ultimately they must have
their proper weight with the legislature., That they
will influence Sir Robert Peel, however, to include
the article •of tea amongst those affected by his
present meazures, we do not believe. The sugges-
tion comes from an influential body of British
merchants, with no party bias or combination to
influence them in the course they are pursuing, and
not from the members of a brawling conspiracy.
It is to be laid before him for consideration in the
respectful and constitutional form of a memorial,
not dictated as the "sic volo sic Jubeo" of a body
which holds in its hands the power of swamping the
registries of the kingdom. It will he neglected
therefore, for the present, although capable of being
urged on the ground of morality, as affecting the
sobriety and the diminution of crime, of the masses
of consumers ; but it may ultimately he conceded,
not for its beneficial tendency alone, but as leading
to the full carrying out of the principle of Sir Robert
Peel's present policy.
It is not on account of any importance which
attaches to the opinions of Lord Monteagle that we
have made his remarks serve as the text of these
observations. The most feeble of Chancellors df
the Exchequer is not, even after being pitchforked
into the peerage, an authority in our eyes. The
remarks in question, however, afford us an opportu-
nity of directing the attention of our readers to the
real ultimatum of the Free Trade party, and the full
carrying out of their policy. Let it be borne in
mind that the original argument of the league---only
abandoned because it aroused the hostility of the
operative masses and was too transparently selfish—
was that they must have repeal of the corn laws, to
enable them to cheapen the labour of their work-