The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-18 00:00:00

purchaser

eject. The community themselves wer
ges as regarded production and sale. This was a
acknowledged principle, although one that

generally

was greatly violated in practice
neral principle, however, without some exceptions
A question of this sort would be regulated by the
cost of production. If it was found that there were extraor-

There- wa

no ge-

dinary burthen• 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. 6d. This would make the price 455. 6d. 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
were 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
to the north of Europe. If corn were brought

the sup
from more dista

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 receive 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 he 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 liad been recommended by persons of
great authority. By Mr. Malthus, by Mr. Ricardo, and
Mr. M'Culloch. 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 every branch of industry. Mr. Huskisson, in his
speech in 1830, 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
be a discretionary power in the crown to open the ports.
(Ministerial cheers.) That which was really important was,
that there should be aconatant trade ; that corn should never
be shut out, and at a certain price it should be let in more
P Rajiv. 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 hrn.
gentleman said that the corn laws did not cause the dis-
tress.' He (Lord John Russell) thought those 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 consume more manufactures. The right honourable
gentleman thought that the distress was caused by over
production, 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
re •

gn 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, however, that they would make a decision
for the benefit of the whole community of Great Britain. The
noble lord then concluded by the motion of which he had
given notice.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, the real question was, not which
side of the house could collect the greatest array of prejudice
and passion in its support ; but whether, looking to what is
practically best, the house ought, under all the considerations
involved in the subject, to accept the proposal of his right
hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) or to adopt that proposed last year
by the noble lord. Now he was prepared to contend that the
evils attributed to the existing corn-law were to be attributed
to that law only in a limited degree, and he should further
contend that the evils themselves were very much exagge-
rated. He further contended that the advantages of a fixed
duty were grossly exaggerated, and that the objections which
attached to such a duty on its own merits were perfectly in -
superable. The sliding kale was said to have been charge-
able with the evil of leading to severe fluctuations in price,
but similar fluctuations had taken place in countries where
no such law prevailed. The hon. gentleman quoted the
prices of rye in Prussia at different periods, in order to sup-
port this view of the case ; rye
being in Prussia' used as the
general food of the people in about e same proportion as
wheat used
was
„—,, in England. This, he said, proved that the
fluctuationswere to be attributed to the difficulty of adjusting
to the demand, rather than to any inherent evil in
the law.
the supply to hon. gentleman then went on to show that at
64s the noble lord and Sir R. Peel would, like great planets,
be in coujunction as far as respected duty, but as the noble
lord would not ,
reduce his 8s duty to is until it reached 73s or
745, surely his plan
held out far more temptations than that
of his right honourable friefnrdietnodt,samppreorpowsaitlhwtahse
taoverreadgeusce;
for his right honourable
like that of the noble lord. As
gradually and not suddenlY,
to considering the 20s dntdynatyPwroahsibuituulryy leovnieellhwehleinadthte
remind the house that that
price at home indicated
n abundant supply in the home
3 material supply of foreign corn
markets, at which time any ,
were to be considered a pro-
would be prejudicial, and if this . ,
hibitory duty, he must say that he sineseVcychtohpeeydeatrhaltmw4e,
should always be blest with such a one.
there had always been a maximum duty
of 2.
O
tation of foreign corn, and in the coursee fth on h
at time there
was a period of 30 years which was triumphantly referred to
by the advocates of a repeal of the corn laws. as oney pr e duringvail
ed.
the whole of which a free trade in corn preened
It was true that a free trade practicall did prevail during
y
that period, but nevertheless the maximum duty
of 20s was
e whole time. It was said that if
we
corn of other countries they tynnid tni,-. nnr manufacturestooktiiine

also in force th,

Of this
in.

too certa

iac V...,
would not take. Russian pr

that Russia

s? The fact was
slue of two mill

our manufactu'

his—we

exported to Russia to tilt.
.s per annum
and we imported from that country over six millions in value.
in addition to this Russia had r‘Tently published a new tariff
by which additionel restrictions were placed upon the impor-
tation into that country of British produce, which showed
that other countries were much more favourable to an imi-
tation of us in our former restrictive system than likely to
follow us in our modern system of relaxing g those restrictions.
zentleman concluded by vindicating the measure of
- -reat improvement of the present corn
,ave to it his hearty and conscientious

the Government as a g

Mw, and, therefor

support—(hear,
said,
hear,-
Mr. C. WOO was out of the question to pretend
D
gn nations
to say that we should not be dependent on foreign
for corn, when, for the last ten years, the produce th of
iici-455,t was insufficient to supply its population, and when
e

year. We I

3 supply, and the only question w

is to the way

in which that supply could be obtained with the least possi-
ble injury to any class of the community. The hon. gentle-
-ad into a lengthened argument, interspersed
calculations, in order to show that a fixed duty

1 man then ent

ith sevt

was preferable to a s
Mr. LIDDELL
lieved the mt