The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-02 00:00:00

without

.it to be on foreign countries for her supply of the
necessaries of life. There could, however, be no question
but that this country had now outgrown the necessity for
such a law, as was obvious from the fact that the invest-

xnent of capital in agriculture was as great and as vigorous
as it had ever been. _ _ .

The Duke of Cleveland and the Duke of Richmond
spoke against the bill, and Earl Fitzwilliam and the
Marquis of Londonderry in favour of it.
Lord STANLEY then rose and delivered a most elaborate
address, the report of which occupies no less t'

an nine

columns in the morning papers. His lordship began by
expressing great distrust in his own powers, but he felt
strong in a conviction of the truth of the cause he sup-
ported, when entering upo❑ the defence of a system of law
which had been designated by Earl Fitzwilliam an absurd
system, and which had been vigorously assailed by those
who had hitherto ably and strenuously defended it, and to
whom it owed its very existence. Upon the question of
authority, he appealed from the authority of the living to
that of the dead
.;, from statesmen of the present day to
Lord Chatham. Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson; to Lord
Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and Lord Grey. The Earl of
Ripo❑ had denied that the Legislature had recognized the
principle of protecting native industry as a reason for re-
gulating the importation of corn, whereas such a principle
bad been adopted so early as the reign of Edward IV.,
and it had been continued to be the rule of our legislation
up to the present time, that it was expedient to secure the
independence of this country upon foreign nations for
corn, and to give encouragement and protection to the
cultivation of its own soil. This had not only been our
own policy, but at the very moment when we were ven,u-
ring upon the bold experiment of leaving the supply of
this nation's food to chance, every other country in the
world of any eminence maintained a protection to its
agriculture. He did justice to the motives of those who
had brought forward this measure, and Sir Robert Peel in
particular could not fail to have foreseen the dislocation
and disruption of ties, the shock to public confidence,
and the distrust which it would occasion on the part
of constituencies in public men and in parliament.
But the Right Hon. Bart. had mistaken the emergency
and the position in which he was placed ; he had con.
founded the brawling torrent of agitat;on with the deep,
still current of public opinion. Ministers had been asked
in another place what they expected would be the result
of this measure, and they frankly said they did not know.
This measure, therefore, was introduced without a know-
ledge of what its effects would be. The grounds assigned
for the measure were the famine in Ireland and the suc-
cess of the tariff; but these reasons were mutually at va-
riance. If this bill relieved the famine in Ireland, it could
only be by bringing down the price of corn to the means
of the starving population of Ireland. Their lordships
must distinguish between famine and great local scarcity.
Ile spoke of famine in Ireland as a vision, a baseless vi-
sion ; he spoke in different terms of the amount of desti-
tution and distress through the partial failure of the pots-
toe crop. When the subject came before the cabinet of
which he was a member, he yielded his own opinion, and
consented to a suspension, and a suspension only, of the
Corn Law ; a total abolition he considered unjustifiable
in itself; but he was left alone. The noble lord then en-
tered into details respecting the course he had taken in
these transactions, and then into statistical details appli-
cable to the policy and effects of the existing corn-law, and
particularly to the operation of the sliding scale in check-
ing the tendency of a rise in the price of corn, and in pre-
venting the fluctuation of prices. This was a complete
answer to those who said that fluctuation in prices was
the peculiar vice of the sliding-scale; whereas never had
prices so fluctuated as during the free trade in corn, when
we were most dependent on a foreign supply. In the
prices of articles not subject to any sliding scale, in which
there was a free trade—potatoes and cotton, for example
—the fluctuations were enormous. The present corn-law
bad kept us independent of foreign nations, lowered, and
maintained a steadiness in prices; and would any man
contend that these advantages had been purchased by a
sacrifice of any interest ? So far from it our exports had
increased, our shipping had increased, the value of land
bad augmented, why, then, was this hazardous experi-
ment to be made? The system of manufacturing pros-
perity was not without its danger; it should not be
checked, but it ought to be carefully watched ; the power
of production was always overtaking that of absorption,
and if manufactures were pampered to an unwholoaomo
increase when the bubble burst the ruin would be exten-
sive. But it was not clear that the repeal of the corn-law
would increase manufactures. If an argument was drawn
from the effects of the tariff upon other articles, the price
of corn would rise with the repeal of the duty, for that of
wool had risen. He however, contended that the price of
corn would fall greatly ; that we should have an inunda-
tion of foreign corn at 40s. a quarter, making that about
the price of corn in the British market. The large pra-
fits of the foreizn corn-grower on the importation of the j
article into England would furnish him with capital, which
be would apply to the raising of more corn. And how
were the manufacturers to be benefitted by this measure?
Only by the reduction of wages. The price of labour
must fall with the price of corn. If the labourers's wages
were to be reduced, they ought to have the balance of ad-
vantages fairly put before them. The noble lord then
showed the fallacy of the notion that Russia, Prussia, and
the United States would not take our manufactures be-
cause we did not take their corn, and that our exports to
these countries would increase after the bill passed. But
admitting that there would be a great increase in the ex-
ports of our manufactures, difficulties might arise and war
intervene ; and when foreign markets were closed against
us, sad we had destroyed our home markets, then would
be the period of bitter suffering to all, and especially to our
artisans. And upon whom would the loss fall? Not
merely on the landlords, but on tenant farmers, who must
suspend improvements, discharge labourers, and reduce
wages according to the cold and selfish maxims of the
free-traders. But if this system could be carried into
effect in England, could it be even tried in Ireland ? And
to say that this measure was for the relief of Ireland was a
proposition perfectly absurd. The noble lord then showed
the injurious effects of the measure upon the colonies.
Destroy the principle of protection, and he told them that
they would destroy the whole basis on which our colonial
system rested. If our colonies were taught commercial
independence, they might learn political independence.
With regard to Canada, we were going to break our pro-
mises to her, and more, we were about to destroy the
communication by the St. Lawrence, and to make New
York the channel of our communication with Upper Ca-
nada; whilst the United States saw our suicidal policy,
and were taking advantage of it. In conclusion, his lord-
ship made a powerful appeal to those noble lords, who
went with him in his argument, and disapproved of and
were alarmed at this measure, and yet for various reasons,
were prepared to vote for it, against a blind deference to
the authority of the other house, which, according to its
recorded votes, had repeatedly negatived this measure.
Such a sudden conversion diminished confidence in the
last vote. He warned them, likewise, against being de-
terred by the fear of being suspected of unworthy motives
of self-interest. It was for their Lordships to check hasty
and ill considered legislation, and to pretect the people
against the treachery of those whom they had chosen to
represent their opinions.
Lord BROUGHAM then spoke in favour of the bill, and
the debate was adjourned.