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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

In reply to a question from Lord JOCELYN,
Sir R. PEEL declared that, on theVart of her Majesty, he
was empowered to re-echo the sentiments expressed by the
Sovereign and by the legislature in 1834, with respect to the
agitation for a repeal of the union. The government were
aware of the necessity of preserving the public peace in-Ire-

land; and although they were unwilling to call for fresh
powers for that purpose, yet they would not shrink from
doing so should the necessity arise in order to put down the
attempt at the dismemberment of the empire. (Cheers.)
Mr. VILLIERS then moved the following resolution, "That
this house will resolve itself into, a committee of the whole
house, for the purpose of considering the duties affecting the
importation of foreign corn, with a view to their immediate
abolition." The hon. gentleman said that the subject had
been so frequently discussed, that it might be considered to be
exhausted ; but latterly a change had taken place in public
opinion upon the corn law, owing to the exertions of the Anti-
Corn-Law League, however its exertions might have been in
that housd under rated. The distress of the country had
compelled the people to think, and the result was the aban-
donment of those arguments by which the corn law had been
hitherto supported, for the act itself was abandoned last year,
and a less stringent one passed in its room, while it was de-
clared that this was chiefly done for the benefit of the agri-
cultural labourer. In fact, the law was altogether condemned
by public opinion, and the termination of its existence only
awaited the sentence of the legislature. It had been pro-
ductive of nothing but mischief—it had interfered with the
employment of capital and labour—had diminished the means
of consumption—and deranged the transactions of a com-
mercial nation. Since the year 1838 there had been paid for
food no less than sixty millions more than in the four pre-
ceding years, the result of which was an abstraction of capital,
the decline of the home markets, and, as a consequence of
that decline, the glutting of foreign markets, until our
merchants became ruined, and our whole population were
plunged into a distress so deep as not to be paralleled even
by the horrors of war. As a proof of the increase of distress,
he stated that the number of casual poor relieved by the city
of London in 1836 was only 925, whereas in 1842 the number
amounted to 2933. The use of wheaten bread was denied to
ten millions of the people—a fact as startling as it was dis-
graceful, while a plague had arisen in Louisiana, because for
want of a market the produce was left to rot on the ground.
Pitiful remedies had been proposed, but the master evil, the
corn law, was left untouched, though it interfered not only
with commerce but with agriculture also, by raising deceptive
expectations as to prices, and thus preventing such an
equitable arrangement between landlord and tenant as would

tend to develope the real capabilities of the soil. At the close
of a long speech the hon. member warned the house that the
people would not long submit to this law now that it had

beeia openly avowed by Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Melbourne,
Lord John Russell, and Lord Mountcashel that it had been
passed for the express purpose of upholding the landed
interest.
M. V. STUART seconded the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE at once announced the determination of

government to leave no doubt whatever as to its intentions.
He denied that the Canadian Corn Bill which was to be pro-
posed was any amendment of the corn law of this country—
it was, in fact, but a portion of the measures of the last year.
The corn law, no doubt, like every other commercial law,
was an experiment, but it was also to a certain extent a con-
tract, and it would be a positive breach of faith to attempt
its repeal until its operation had been fairly tested. The
legislature,cert
a ibny
protectionits course otfi proceeding
agricultural
interest had con-
ferred; inconsequence of which capital was embarked in its operations.
A moral obligation was thus incurred, which the country had
no right at once to shake off. He could not agree in the
argument that the present low prices of agricultural produce
were favourable to a repeal of the corn laws. On the con-
trary, however favourable to the mass of the community.
those prices would not enable the farmer to support himself
under a further reduction. He deplored most sincerely the
sufferings of the people, but comparing our present with our
past position, he must say that the means of subsistence,
both as to quantity and quality, during the last ten years, was
far better than it had been two centuries ago. The price of
wheat at this moment was rather lower than it had been
during the ten years immediately antecedent to the war. The
corn law of his right hon. friend had been in operation but
one short year=in many respects an extraordinary year, for
the spring gave the most unfavourable indications of the
abundant harvest which followed, and all calculations in the
corn trade were consequently baffled. Under these circum-
stances the law, he contended, had not had a fair trial. It
was most absurd to charge the landowners with obstructing
improvements in agriculture, and it might seem paradoxical
to term cheapness a misfortune; but if wheat in America
could be bought for 225., and brought to this country for 108.
more, without the payment of any duty, the sudden change
of price would, in his opinion, be a great misfortune to the
country. The change which bad been last year made in the
corn law was introduced with the intention of relaxing the
stringency of the sliding scale, and of relieving the commu-
nity with the slightest possible injury to existing interests.
The unexpected abundancy of the harvest had interfered with
the intended result ; but although prices had fallen, he did
not think it fairly attributable to the law of last year, for
under the old law prices would have been lower still. If this
country had a free trade in corn with America, it would have
to pay for that corn, under existing circumstances, in gold,
which would produce most serious effects on our currency.
The right hon. gentleman concluded3a very able speech by
declaring his belief that government would be unworthy of
the confidence of this great country were they to assent to
the motion of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that, in 1815, the landlords consulted
their own interests, by keeping up high prices and high rents,
by means of a law prohibiting the importation of foreign
corn. This was the original reason for establishing the
monopoly, and it was mere hypocrisy to deny it. He denied
that a free trade in corn would have the effect of draining the
country of bullion, for in fact the corn must either directly
or indirectly be paid for by our manufacturers, and it was a
mere bugbear to say that the effect of it would be to leave no
gold in the country. He contended that the speech of Mr.
Gladstone, though abounding with statistics, had but one
argument throughout—that in reference to the importation of
corn from America. He would challenge him. when he
came to read his speech in the morning, to pick out one
other grain of wheat from the bushel of chaff. He did not
think that the immediate result of free trade would be to
render all the people prosperous; but a free trade in corn
would introduce a larger portion of food, and the greater the
proportion introduced the greater would be the quantity
which would fall to the share of each individual labourer.
He concluded by declaring that he would vote for the motion
of Mr. Villiers.
Mr. MILES then moved the adjournment of the debate,
which was at once agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

In reply to a question from Sir H. NV: BARRON,

Sir 1. PEEL said that the subject of Irish railways was
under the consideration of the Government, but he was not
prepared to propose any grant of public money for the pur-
pose of establishing them.
Mr. MILES resumed the adjourned debate on the motion
of Mr. Villiers. He denied that the corn law of 1813 was
intioduced, or had been since maintained, from interested mo-
tives on the part of the landlords, and contended at conside-
rable length that the repeal of the corn laws would throw a
great number of persons out of employment, besides pro-
ducing many other mischievous consequences to the agricul-
tural interest.

Mr. WARD argued that this country had in 1815 adopted
a measure respecting corn, which forced the Germans, who
were agriculturists, to become manufacturers in self-defence.
He denied the truth of the proposition laid down by Mr.
Gladstone on the previous evening, that the corn law could
be considered in the light of a contract, for when it passed,
it was passed in opposition to the exertions of those who
thought it did too little, as well as by those who thought it
did too much. The hon. gentleman spoke of the distress in
Sheffield ; and said expressions of sympathy on the part of
the landowners would never satisfy people who were so
deeply suffering, and who were so grossly wronged by this
law. He was as much opposed to a fixed duty as to a sli-
ding scale, although he might have accepted it as a compro-
mise had it been given three years ago. The landowners,
however, had neglected a good bargain when it was offered
to them ; and it was very unlikely they would ever again have
the opportunity of concluding one so advantageous, for no
one now thought of a fixed duty. Lie had no purpose to
serve in declaring his opinion in order to win any constitu-
ency, for he should most probably retire altogether from Par-
liament at the close of the present session, and under these
circumstances he was disinterested in declaring his belief
that the landed proprietors were making a deplorable mis-
take in maintaining the monopoly of corn.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said, that last year very considerable
concessions had been made by the landed proprietors, with-
out giving satisfaction to any one, and from the agitation
which was kept up throughout the country, he feared, how-
ever injurious it might prove, that in a few years they would
have no corn law at all.

Mr. H. J. BAILLIE said that our farmers could not com-
pete with continental agriculturists, for the Dantzic corn
was twenty per cent. superior in quality to that which was
grown in the north and west of England, and also in Ireland.
No civilised country ever
presented such a state of things as
now prevailed in the manufacturing districts. He hoped it
would be a warning to other nations, who were now desirous
of following the example of this country, to be careful how
they attempted to raise up
manufacturing communities.
Protection was essential to the farmer, and it was a matter