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

to name any given amount of price in corn by legislation

Na a great article of concur

ion, it baffled all attempts to

keep it at a steady rate of value

The sliding sc

had been

described by Mr. Canning as a measure which would prevent.

importation except at aparticuTarPeriod_of the year, and

tluit then it would come in like a de

\ .
part of the year, while prices were high, corn could not be
admitted; but just prior to the harvest, when the farmer
was in anticipation of a good price for his produce, the deluge
of foreign corn was poured in, and he found himself griev-
ously disappointed. The blame of these inundations of corn

was attributable to reckless speculators •, but speculators, he
hoped, there always would be ; and if they were sometimes
reckless, it was to be remembered that it was the law which
made them so. Our corn laws were not so restrictive prior
to 1804 us they were at the present time, and the law since
an latter 1815 had not only been more stringent, but it carried with it
theoni
yp proposed
population.p additional
osedT ao m
evill of being
applied
i evil ed
sliding
ane
gseallargely-increased
governmenta nd a
hadi
a im
smalle t this
hg in the
to permit the importation of corn from Canada, as soon as it
had been ascertained that no corn was likely to be obtained
from thence. The noble lord then quoted from Mr. Web-
ster's recent speech at Baltimore passages to show how all-
important it was to commercial men to have certainty in le-
gislation ; and he also quoted Adam Smith and other autho-
rities to show that it required extreme caution to change
even from a bad system to a good one. Aware of this, he
did not purpose an immediate and total repeal of the corn
law, but should submit for the consideration of the house
the adoption of a moderate fixed duty, and he proposed to
go into committee to ascertain the precise amount which
would be the fairest compromise between existing interests.
He still thought that in times of scarcity the government
should have power to suspend the fixed duty if certain occur.
rences took place, which occurrences were less likely to arise
under a fixed duty than any other circumstances. It was
impossible that the present system could be maintained, and
he therefore hoped the house would accede to his motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there appeared to be but little dif-
ference between the noble lord and himself as to the consi-
deration to be extended to existing interests, but he entirely
differed from him as to the propriety of disturbing those
interests by proposing a new change in the corn laws before
the recent one had had any thing like a fair trial. The noble
lord could scarcely flatter himself that the magic of his
oratory would induce the house to agree to his motion, and
by so doing reverse decisions which had been so repeatedly
affirmed after lengthened debates during the present session.
It was contended that the adoption of a fixed duty would
lead
.to a large extension of our foreign trade ; but •this
theory was destroyed by the practical result of what had
been already done in the adoption of free trade principles ; for
as we adopted those principles we were met by hostile tariffs
on the part of foreign nations, who did all that in them lay
to enforce a system of restriction. He was of opinion that
the present corn law did not afford the same temptations as
was given by the old law to import corn in a mass at a parti-
cular period of the year, as might be proved by a reference to
the amounts of delivery. The great fluctuations of price
under the old law could not be alleged against the present
one, for under its operation there had been no sudden action
on the currency—the coffers of the Bank were full, while the
complaints of the British shipowner hed been removed. lie
was sorry to see a disposition on the part of Englishmen to
represent the corn law as a question of rent, founded upon
no other principle than that of the selfishness of the land-
owners, when, in fact, it was justified on the score of pecu-
liar burdens pressing on the land. No reduction of rents
could take place without throwing large portions of land out
of cultivation, and thereby injuring both farmers and la-
bourers. Much stress had been laid upon the necessity of
settling this question ; but how was it possible to obtain a
settlement between the advocates of a fixed duty and the ad-
vocates of a total and immediate abolition of all duty on
corn? In fact, to accede to the motion of the noble lord
would be only unsettling the question. It would be dis-
honourable on the part of the Government if it disturbed the
virtual contract entered into with the agriculturist by the
passing of the existing law, and he wished it to be distinctly
understood throughout the country that it was not passed
with any latent intention of repealing it. Nothing had yet
occurred to justify a change, and notwithstanding the active
attempts to disturb the minds of the agriculturists he was
convinced that a great portion of them were satisfied with the
law as it now stood.
Mr. Laßoucnene supported the motion of Lord John
Russell, arid regretted that a measure so recently passed as
the existing corn law should have given rise, owing to the
nnsound principles on which it was based, to incessant agita-
tion and a probability of indefinite danger.
Sir R. PEEL said, that even if the motion of Lord J. Rus-
sell should be carried, the noble lord could still have no hope
that he could make any proposition in committee which would
be agreed to by those who support his motion for going into
committee. The differences between the advocates of a total
repeal and of a fixed duty would then become at once appa-
rent; and the whole proceeding, therefore, must necessarily
terminate in nothing. He had no doubt but that the pro-
position of the noble lord would be moderate enough, but
fixed it could not be according even to his own apprehension
of future circumstances. The right hon. baronet replied re-
rialim to the chief arguments of the supporters of the mo-
tion, and said lie considered the measure of the last year a
compromise between all the interests concerned, and which
was assented to by the agriculturists on the faith of its being
adhered to. Believing that it was most mischievous to be
constantly tampering with the corn laws, and believing also
that it was impossible that any settlement of the question
could be arrived at in consequence of the motion of the noble
lord, he should at once, in opposing the motion, avow his
determination to maintain the law of last session.
Lord J. -Russm.t. replied, and said that hopelessness of
immediate success was no ground for not bringing forward
such motions. If such a reason were admitted as valid, the
questions of parliamentary reform and of Catholic emancipa-
tion never would have been carried. He had often divided
on the question of reform with far less support than he ex-
pected to receive on that occasion.
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL in explanation, the
house divided, and the motion of Lord J. Russell was nega-
tived by a majority of 244 to 145.