The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-06-16 00:00:00

which, more or less govern the relation

or food, the effects

of depression in the value of farm produce, on rent, agricul.
tural improvement, and home production. I shall only as,
sert, what no one can dispute, that a total repeal of the corn.
laws would displace, to an unlimited extent, British growl
corn in the home market. This, the free-traders must ad.

mit; for if repeal did not act thus, it would not, as according
to their theory, induce, or as they assert compel, foreign go-
vernments to displace the productions of their manufacturing
industry in their own markets, by admitting freely the pro-
ductions of British manufacturing industry, in exchange for
their surplus agricultural productions. If the total repeal,

is not to displace British grown corn, by foreign grown corn,

in the home market, what becomes of the theory of contem

poraneous and coextensive exchange, even if this should be
reciprocated by foreigners ; and if this displacement be ef-

fected, whether
_reciirocatedor_unreciproc-ated, what is to

become of British agiiculture

I have, on former occasions,

asserted, and no one will now attempt to dispute this, that

foreign nations will not receive, freely, British manufactures,
in exchange for their surplus agricultural produce, even if we
were to receive it free, as the repeal proposes. Under these

. . .
circumstances, the repeal of the corn-laws, would doubly de-
fraud British labour ; it would displace the productions of
British labour, in the home market, by the absence of pro-

tection ; and it would exclude British productions from
foreign markets, by the existence of protection there. There
are not two sorts of free-trade. There cannot be a perfectly
free foreign trade, and, at the same time, a protected home
and colonial trade. We must make our election which to
.•

prefer. We cannot deprive the home producer of food, of
the benefit of protection, by the repeal of the corn-laws, to
reduce the price of the productions of hi.; industry, without a
corresponding action upon all other productions, by which to
give the agriculturists the reciprocal compensation, of cheap-
ening, to them, all other productions, by free foreign compe-
tition likewise. Free-trade in corn, then, means, and must
be followed, if not immediately at least speedily, and inevita-
bly, by free-trade in every thing else. This, therefire, is a
large question, affecting the interests, not of any particular
class, but of the whole community, and of vital importance
to the empire. So far from relieving the distress which has
unfortunately prevailed among the labouring population of
this country—so far from preventing the recurrence of those
vicissitudes which, if not past, are I trust passing, the total
repeal of the corn-laws would vastly aggravate all existing
evils, and produce others of the most formidable descriptions.
And now to answer the question which the honourable mem-
ber for Dumfries has put to me, whether I have not re-
cently received a mandate from a meeting of the Anti.

Corn-Law League, at Liverpool. calling upon me to sup-
port the motion of the honourable member for Wolverhamp-
ton, and what answer I have returned to that communication.
Sir, on the grounds which 1 have stated, I have replied that,
asserting the right, which I told the electors of Liverpool I

would always exercise, of acting as their free representative,
and_not as their delegate, and convinced of the truth of what
I am now asserting, I not only would not support the motion
of the hon. member for Wolverhampton, but do every thing
in my power to defeat it ; believing that not only the agricul-
tural, but the manufacturing interest, and all other interests
would suffer, immeasurably and permanently, were this mo-
tion carried. I trust I know in what way agriculture, manu-
factures and commerce, act and react upon each other; that
they are closely interwoven ; that neither can suffer any
serious depression without affecting, prejudicially, the others ;
but then I know that agriculture is the root of all, and that
if its root be sapped, and its branches withered, no other
branch of our national industry can flourish; and that no
greater evil could befal the manufacturing interests in parti-
cular than the depression or supersession of British agricul-
ture by an unlimited importation of foreign corn. I know
the difference between the effects of cheapness of food pro-
duced by abundance of home production, and that cheapness
which results from unlimited foreign importation. The one
quickens, the other deadens, the home market. England is

England's best customer

The home market, says Adam

Smith. is the best of all markets, and should be preferred to
all; and Huskisson terminates a powerful passage in one of
his best speeches, which I will not read fully to the house,
by saying, " that to protect the small farmer is ultimately
to protect the people." The free traders opposite, however,
persist in repudiating all protection ; they say they have no
protection, and that they desire none. This may be all very
well for the cotton spinners and the cotton printers; they
may, if they please, desire to renounce the vast advantages of
a home market, for the consumption of about £28,000,000
sterling of their cottons; but what say the other interests?
First of all, the cotton manufactures, as well as aßothers,
have protection in the colonial market, and in the home
market, without which they could not compete with fo-
reigners. What say the shipping interests ? I call upon the
representatives of that great national interest, in this house,
to state, whether, to withdraw protection any further from
the British shipping, for the purpose of buying freight cheap,
would not subvert the maritime power of England ? Adam
Smith says, "that the navigation laws are the wisest of all
the laws of England, inasmuch as security and power are
better than opulence." What say the hardware interests,
represented by the hon. members for Sheffield? I call upon
them to answer me? The value of hardware, of all sorts,
wrought and unwrought, exported in 1841, was about
£6,600,000 sterling ; but the value retained for home con-
sumption was upwards of £11,000,000 sterling. What say
the leather interest, of whose productions about £432,000
only was exported, and £13,000,000 consumed at home. The
linen interests, of whose productions £8,000,000 worth were
retained for home consumption, being double the amount of
the value exported. Then books, printing, paper, what say
these interests? Of these, £14,000,000 worth were retained
for home consumption, and not half a million exported. Of
the productions of our silk industry, £6,000,000 worth were
retained for home consumption, and not near a million in
value exported. Of china, glass, and earthenware, only
£3,000,000 value was exported, whilst £4,000,000 value were
retained for home consumption. Of saddlery and plate,
£3,000,000 value were consumed at home, against about
£2,000,000 exported. Of many miscellaneous articles, which
I have classed together, £25,000,00() value were consumed at
home, against about £8,000,000 value exported. And then
the mining interests, what say they ? Where are now the
members opposite, who advocated so warmly their interests
in discussing the tariff last year? do they repudiate protec-
tion, with respect to the £21,000,000 worth, at which the
total produce of British mines is estimated, of which no less
than £17,800,000 value were retained for home consumption?
And how much, I ask, of all this enormous value consumed
in the home market, would continue to find profitable con-
sumption and active reproduction, if free and unlimited im-
portation of foreign articles, of like kinds, were permitted?
It would produce the most unmitigated misery. 1 feel con-
vinced that the distress which still prevails, is in great part
owing to our having opened the sluices for the regulation of
trade, a little too freely. I believe that the depression in the
value of British labour, in relation to foreign labour, and the
consequent deterioration in the physical and moral condition
of the British labourer, arise from foreign competition ; and
that free-trade would still further depress British labour not
only to, but beneath the level of the most wretched foreign
serf. But free traders, reckless of all this, insist upon going
on, reducing the price of production, labour one of its ele.
ments, to buy cheap, without regard to the country or origin,
growth or production, for that to buy cheap, is to sell dear;
and here I must advert to the manner in which the right
hon. baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government is
frequently taunted with his observation on the advantage of
buying in the cheapest market, as if, by this, he went all the
length of their theory of buying cheap without regard to the
country or origin, growth or production, or as to the nation-
ality of the vessels employed in carrying. The right hon.
baronet's observation is a mere abstract proposition ; a truism
not to be denied. But I deny that, to buy cheap, is neces-
sarily to sell dear, in an economic sense • and I assert that,
in a national sense, this must very often be political prodiga-
lity ; because it would be prodigal of security and power. In
the practice of buying and selling, there must be two parties ;
each buys as cheap as the other can afford to sell, and sells as
dear as the other can afford to buy ; and these transactions,
compounded together, bring out something like the exchange..
able value of the subjects of the transaction. Iby no means
assert that we should refuse to buy any articles or materials
which we can produce at home ; because that, carried out to
its extreme, would put an end to all external trade; but be-
tween this extreme, and the extreme of abolishing pro-
tection altogether, we should regulate our intercourse
with foreign nations, by reciprocal engagements for a fair
exchange of each other's surplus productions, on princi-
ples of mutual advantage. The hon. member for Sheffield
(Mr. Ward) does not deny the existence and the stringency
of foreign tariffs, nor the advances and indications which we
have made to foreign nations on several occasions to relax
our several restrictive and prohibitive enactments on the
principle of reciprocity. but which no foreign nation has fairly
met. The hon. member says that we began this too late :
that in 1815 we had the whole game in our own hands; that
the foreign protective systems were not then in existence ;
and that we might then have moulded our trade to suit our
own purpose, by deterring foreigners from adopting the
manufacturing system. This is a very great mistake, as I
think I have already shown. The French protective system
is at least as old as 1616. Colbert extended it in 1665. Then
came Napoleon's continental system in 1806 ; his decrees its
1807 ; the establishment everywhere in France of that re-
markable institution which is now so stringent, a sort of
commercial legislation, organised throughout France and
centralised in Paris, namely, the Chambers of Manufactures,
Commerce, and Agriculture, with the supreme councils,
general and consultive, which must be consulted before any
measure affecting commercial policy be propounded to the
legislative chambers, and which advice no government in
France will dare to disregard. These remarkable institutions
bad their existence even before the Revolution ; they were
confirmed and extended in the year eleven of the Republic;
affirmed by Louis XVIII of the Restoration ; made more
efficient by Charles X ; and never were so stringent as now
under Louis Philippe. I have already shown that the pro-
tective system in the United States had its origin in Wash-
ington's time, and has been recommended by, and prosecuted
under, every President, downwards to the present time; and
I need not say how stringent the United States tariff is now.
Then, with respect to the German league, Prussia being its
primary, the protective system was introduced by Frederick
11. In Austria it is as old, at least, as Joseph 11. But 1
will not take up the time of the house in reviewing more of
these. I repeat my assertion, that the foreign protective
systems, from the rivalry and competition of which we are
now suffering, were all established or commenced anterior to
any discussions of this nature in this country ; that they were
interrupted in their progress by the war; that it was our
naval superiority that broke down Napoleon's continental
system ; and that nothing that we could have done in 1815
would have prevented foreign nations from reverting, at the
peace, to their principle of manufacturing for themselves,
and that it is utterly out of our power, do what we may, to
arrest the progress they are making in rivalling us. I speak
on the authority of sound practical men, when I say that what
this country now wants is not free trade, hut steadiness and
confidence in the stability, at least for some years, of our
commercial policy. We have abundance, superabundance of
wealth ; money, its symbol, seeking conversion into active
capital, at the lowest rate of interest ever known, but cannot
find profitable employment; labour languishing, and even
famishing for work, and cannot find it. The great problem
we have to solve is, to bring these extremes together. What
capitalist will adventure to do this, under the agitation, the
assurance, or at least Oe dread of perpetual change, Prac-
tical men of all theoretical persuasions deprecate any further
change. The opinion of the present President of the United
States is no bad authority on this subject :
" It cannot be too often repeated, that no system of legis-
lation can be wise which is fluctuating and uncertain. Fitful
profits,
however high, if threatened with a ruinous reduction
by a vacillating policy on the part of government, will
scarcely tempt the capitalist to trust the money which he has
acquired by a life of labour upon the uncertain adventure."
For myself, were I disposed to go further, which 1 am not,
inndmyvote
a effects oexcite-
ment shall have ceased, and until the practical
any
ffurt freeh
further
trade,change, I s huotual
all remainagitation firm
aingatihnestwaaYn
quarters;
certain farces and other proceedings in appropriate
t tea-drinking
but 1 may refer to the proceedings of a recen
recent changes shall have been proved. 1 shall not allud to
for Bolton,
discourse tuade by the hon. and learned member d
1.11.
that occasion, which blew up one of the far famed c s
visit with which the league have favoured Liverpool. In a
upon