The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-11-22 00:00:00

P°lslllation;" and " we need be under no apprehension
°f consumption declining, as there is ' room and verge
eti°lll4ll' for twenty thousand millions" (!) instead of
itB present population of short of one thousand mil-

1104. This twenty-fold increased population of the
*4l(1—for which, of course, we must wait patiently-
1113111d raise a consumption for British manufactures,
a good return being found in articles for the British
markets"—.for the seventeen millions who inhabit this
emnparatively diminutive isle ! Can Quixotic folly,
Ne ask, go further than this sample of sheer absurdity ?
For what is the inevitable conclusion which its pro-
iMunder forces upon us? Simply this—that we are
Manufacturing beyond our power to consume the com-
'Wities which we receive in exchange for our exports.
I
Other words, we are OVER-PRODUCERS ! We are
glutting, with the products of our looms and our
spindles, the markets of the world : and we are also

glutting the British market with foreign produce
b
eY°nd our power of consumption. If the remittance
18 inconvertible, except at glut prices, such must also
tie the prices of our manufactures in the home market,
4rlti by them must be governed the price of labour, and
°P. every other commodity which enters into the com-
P4ition of our manufactures ! We thank Mr.
Buckingham for the light which he has thrown upon
hitherto dark subject. It is irresistibly striking!
The address of Mr. Richard Cobden was of a totally
different character to that of the lecturer, Buckingham.
atit was rambling and flippant throughout ; but as it did
dress itself to one cr two of the practical points of
the

gle anti-corn-law question, it was more worthy of a
41.44 of sense to utter and of those who oppose the
1
lews of his party to notice.
Mr. Cobden is at issue now, net only with his co-agi-
,
tars of the league; not only with the entire agricultural
hlterest; but with his own sentiments, uttered (as we trust
rye shall be able hereafter to chew) during the present
}ear' with respect to the effect of a free trade in corn
11\1:41 the cultivation of the corn lands of Great Britain.
g4t other men, and Mr. Cobden himself, we repeat,
have contended that at least some soils must, by ad-
r4tting the grain of other countries, duty free, be
ithrown out of cultivation : but he is now ,prepared to
contend that no such effect will be produced. And how
ti
°es he argue this, perhaps the important point of the
i,l,°le question ? In the first place, he rakes up from
'ivion a pamphlet published eighteen years ago by a
eGant of Lord Wharncliffe's, on " The Valuing of 'l'll-
LChgeB and Farms," in which it is laid down as a rule,
at `` when wheat is 40s. per quarter, the rental of the
hest land should be 255. per acre ; and that the latter
,th ciald rise or fall ss. per acre, with every Bs. rise or
14,111, of the former. With regard to the poor soils, when
11
geat is 40s. per quarter, the rent should be Gs. per
acre, Varying in the same proportion as the best land—
viz. ss. per acre in rent for Ss. per quarter in price."
b.sullaing this calculation, then, to be a correct one,

maintains that if wheat was reduced to 325. per
cillarter, the best lands would still be worth 20s. per
acre, and the s orst is., and that, as "we know by his-
.(l.lT that that land was let for 6d. an acre years ago, and
111
, it was cultivated and farmed, so if it was down to
64
an acre now, it would be farmed."
of.'\olv, we ask seriously, does Mr. Cobden, or do any
the congregated ladies who cheered this piece of ab-
,kriclitY, suppose that any ten sensible farmers, or sen-
iule men of any profession, could be duped by such a
Statement ? Putting out of view the dishonesty, upon
wh
leh we may remark hereafter, of this cool mode of
i,BPosing of the rental of the owner of the soil, which

14 not to " stand between the league" and the realiza-
i°4 of its designs, where is the parallellism of the cases
Put--the cultivation of land at one shilling per acre
t,
now, and its cultivation at sixpence per acre
therital " years ago ?" What was the price of labour in
thee "years ago ?" A PENNY A DAY ! What were
'be Prices of other commodities ? They were propor-

:10rial• The entire circumstances of the two eras were
th different that no comparison can he drawn between
rern; and the very attempt to do so betrays an igno-
tlee and a confidence in that of his auditors which is
perfectlyo astounding !
rit What, let us ask, is the authority upon whose
te
colations this silly attempt to answer one of the most
grape objections tothe abolition of all protection to native
agriculture is founded ? The writer of the directions
fe
tr ci
Valuing Tillages and Farms"—whether those di-
qetrt,icils are based upon correct or incorrect data we
ad not stop to inquire—was estimating the rental of
oftici at a period when the old corn law, with its limit
15,138• per quarter, was in operation, and when low
iices could only be produced by abundant harvests. It
Perfectly possible that when such was the case his
tgl4ea might approach somewhat near to correctness ;
eilt to suppose that they can possibly apply, under the
4.eration of an entirely free trade, when low prices may
haY~although the harvests of the British farmer may
1444 proved an entire failure, is an assumption so wild
It scarcely merits serious refutation.
to Parliament
Cobden may be quite at home when speaking,
to Parliament or elsewhere, upon matters appertaining
wivcotton and calico, exports and imports. He may,
1,411 Safety to the cause of which he assumes to be the
te4(l.ing advocate, be permitted to string together the
InarY fallacies in which he deals, for the amusement
Mob of millocrats and weavers, or the old women
tivc constitute the " great gatherings" and " grand fes-
44'' got up by the Anti-Corn-Law League; but we
4
4 ate satisfied, by this one specimen which he afforded us
criday evening, of his utter incapacity to argue the
tia°44 question of free trade upon an arena, where mere
liielltrap and sophistry are put hors de combat, and
rl'B minds are convinced by sterling facts and sound
p:,°,rling. Enough, however, of so very small and so
Y overrated a personage as Mr. Richard Cobden !

e4tt able writer, in the last number of The Church of
14land Quarterly Review, has the following remarks,
an article entitled " The State of the Country."
Meer deprecating, and most justly, the principle that
14ietY must always be progressing, and that a govern-
-4:1,11t is bound to be for ever conceding to the
1e,,;-4,11ds of the admirers of novelty in theory and in
to°Lstion, the reviewer proceeds :—" We say, then,
110 it Robert Peel, we have had enough of change;
and secure to us some years of reflection, observation,
tiv exPerience; and give a distinct and decisive nega-
e to all that shall tend to re-agitate the public mind
ebvent the good which you hope to accomplish
14 d k
the measures you have taken for the relief of the
k4lllfacturers and other classes of the community.
greet the cry of the Corn-law. Repeal League by the
ti:;vio4B question. Meet the cry of the Radical poli-
-4'44 for the Repeal of the Union,' for 'The Ballot,'
Universal Suffrage,' for `The doing away with
ilel4iastical Courts,' and for "The Abolition of
utch Rates,' by the previous question. Say to those
hty° Periodically agitate the country to its very centre
cil4beir false and dangerous theories, `'There is no
nee for you of success. We are determined to
law4t °re to society the reign of peace, order, and the
Da,t: 'We have a powerful and an almost omnipotent
ill '3' in this respect to back us. We have been placed
1%,: ice to support and defend these principles ; and
01411,viR discuss no more theories until the country
Ati have settled down to a state of calmness and con-

View a great extent, we cordially coincide in these
Bof the writer in question. We say, too, "We
tio„, e had enough of change." We say, "Secure to us
Th'"e Years for reflection, observation, and experience."
ao: ,feverish excitement the panting anxiety for
Of a.t4Y----which has for years past existed in the minds
be -t
great portion of the people of this country, cannot
ctt°° much deplored, or the principle condemned that
it 4:44'4 changes in legislation are for the advantage of
Pra;t`,°rl. We have ever deprecated, in statesmen, the
poil-t'ee of conceding to the expression of mere
ito:tialar opinion, what conviction has not already dis-
dietie`:,them to concede, independent of such popular
it it °ll. Concession should never be granted when
htiti unaccompanied with conviction of its advantage ;
cori e hold concession delayed, for one hour after such
wieti°n, to be injustice and tyranny.
the e,are far, however, from agreeing to the justice or
)14 ",!,,s(10n1 of the advice which the reviewer would
hate Conservatives address to Sir Robert Peel. He
llightiLgiviogs with respect to the disposition of the
Illtra-f"3O. Baronet to concede to the demands of the
that ree traders and levellers. So have we. And for
thverY reason—because we fear the want of firmness
heti: Premier to resist the popular outcry of these
.444 to would not depend ourselves, or teach
to the 0 depend, upon the mere strength of a majority
tt
Meet
ouse of Commons. We would not say,
he Propositions of these men r vious