The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-15 00:00:00

cause the cessation of agitation. Although it might be wi

once to

to concede, yet when concession was mad; it should be made
with a view to conciliation and settlement

'o disturb and

not to adjust (loud cheers) would be the most imprud

:ourse the government

could pro

adopt. (Cheers.) He thought it necessary, ;lowever trou-
blesome, to state as briefly as he could the general principles
which he thought ought to guide our I

!egislation on this sub

ject. It would be, perhaps, argued that the general principle
was one of not legislating at all upon the subject. The ques-

ion as a general one was a question merely in relation to
mrchaser and seller. Legislation had no place in the
iubject. The community themselves -were the best
udges as regarded production and sal(
;enerally acknowledged principle, although on.

'his was a

There Was no gi

was greatly violated in practic,
neral principle, however, without some exceptions.
A question of this sort would be regulated by the
cost of production. If it was fount that there were extraor-
dinary burthens on the producers, there would, of course, be
certain protections tending particularly to relieve the pro-
ducers of the weight of these extreme burthens. But with
regard to the propositiOn now before the house, although it
might be applicable to some isolated state, how could it
possibly be considered to.be applicable to a principle of inde-
pendence. Whenever England had fed herself without
foreign supply, there had been loud complaints of agricultu-
ral distress. But even if she had enough food within her
own resources, it would be a dangerous measure to reject all
foreign drafts if commerce were thereby checked. In his
opinion a nation should rely upon the natural operations of
commerce. The proposition now made maintained the
principle of a sliding scale, and also the principle of a
high duty. Now, the first objection he took to a sliding
scale was, that it always kept up a prohibitory duty.
What was the first item in this scale? A duty of 20s. was
to be imposed when the price was under 525. The latest
documents they had on the subject were those the consuls
returned. They showed that the prices at Dantzic and Stettin
were about 40s. to 435., the freight about 3s. Another ac-
count stated it at 40s. to 445., the freight about 3s. Another
account stated it at 40s. to 445., and the charges at 4s. to
ss. Gd. This would make the price 455. W. What was the
duty to be here ?-!-20s. ; a sum which was, in point of fact,
a prohibitory duty. At Odessa the price was 265., and the
charges about 10s. But the duty here of wheat was 205.,
so that even in this case the duty would be prohibitory.
He did hope we had come to a period in this ques-
tion when something more might be done than to make
a show of doing justice to the people. The noble lord
then proceeded to say that in whatever way the averages
kvere taken the quality of the corn was still unknown.
For it had been shown that when the averages at two periods
were the same, and the duties the same, there wasstill a great
difference in the price of corn to the consumer. Another
defect in:the system was that it often caused a contraction
of the currency. The system of prohibition at one minute,
and of admission the next, could not but aggravate such an
evil. Another evil was, that frauds could not be prevented
under the system. The most serious evil was, that it confined
the supplies to the north of Europe. If corn were brought
from more distant countries, in all probability when it arrived
it could not be sold at a remunerating price, and thus thecar-
goes were thrown on the hands of the merchant. The United
States of America were by this system precluded from trading
extensively with us in corn. The great population of the
States cultivated immense tracts of arable land, and if they
could afford to send their corn to this country they could not
but be glad to rceive our manufactures. They there had
an opportunity of extending their commerce ; but as long as
the sliding scale existed the Americans would think it a gam-
bling and an uncertain trade. He thought it monstrous that
they should now be legislating not equally for all countries.
The produce of the world was open to them, and they need
not fear a frequent scarcity. He proposed a moderate fixed
duty. Such a duty had been recommended by persons of
great authority. By Mr. Malthus, by Mr. Ricardo, and
Mr. Mtulloch. The committee of 1821, comprising many
men eminent in agriculture, recommended a moderate fixed
duty. That committee expressed a doubt whether the only
solid foundation on which agriculture should rest was not the
absence of protection or prohibition for the application of ca-
pital in ever" branch :of industry. Mr. Huskisson, in his
speech in 18.30, doubted whether in the present amount of
taxation the corn laws could be continued. He (Lord J.
Russell) had proposed, that in case of scarcity, there should
he a discretionary power in the crown to open the ports.
(Ministerial cheers.) That which was really important was.
that there should be a constant trade; that corn should never
be shut out, and at a certain price it should be let in more
easily. There was another point to which he would refer.
It was the distress which existed in the manufacturing
districts both in England and Scotland. The right hon.
gentleman said that the corn laws did not cause the cliff..
tress. He (Lord John Russell) thought tbose laws had,
however, aggravated it. The major part of the wages of
the labouring classes was spent in the purchase of corn.
If then they had a freer admission of foreign corn these
classes; being able to purchase food at a cheaper rate,
would cohsume more manufactures. The right-honourable
gentleman thought that the distress was caused by over
protection, increase of machinery, and, other causes.
That was not according to his (Lord John Russell's) belief
the true cause. As to the increase of machinery lessening
employment, it was well known to be a fallacy. The people
thought that some relief might be obtained by a change in
these laws. If the house did not grant a total repeal, they
should meet their wishes by a material alteration. The
right honourable gentleman said that an alteration of these
laws would not improve the condition of the people. (Hear.)
That he (Lord Russell) believed, certainly, as regarded the
proposed measure of the government. (Opposition cheers.)
He thought they could not legislate to any purpose unless
they rejected that measure. They could then consider the
wishes of the people and the burdens affecting agriculture
and the interests of .every other class. If, however, the
measure of the government were carried, discontent would
reign in England, and the people would attribute to their
representatives a bias towards the agricultural interests, and

with a partial view to their own advantage. (Loud cheers.)
It was his hope, howe'ver, that they would make a decision
_ .

or the benefit of the whole community of Great Britain. The
noble lord, then concluded by the motion of which he had
ziven notice.

Mr: GI.ADSTONE then rose to reply, and was left speaking