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

Population;" and " we need be under no apprehension
of consumption declining, as there is ' room and verge
enough' for twenty thousand millions " (!) instead of
its present population of short of one thousand mil-
lions. This twenty-fold increased population of the
world—for which, of course, we must wait patiently—
Would raise a consumption for British manufactures,
a good return being found in articles for the British
markets"—for the seventeen millions who inhabit this
comparatively diminutive isle ! Can Quixotic folly,
We ask, go further than this sample of sheer absurdity ?
For what is the inevitable conclusion which its pro-
pounder forces upon us ? Simply this—that we are
manufacturing beyond our power to consume the com-
modities which we receive in exchange for our exports.
In 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
beyond our power of consumption. If the remittance
is inconvertible, except at glut prices, such must also
be the prices of our manufactures in the home market,
and by them must be governed the price of labour, and
of every other commodity which enters into the com-
position of our manufactures ! We thank Mr.
Buckingham for the light which he has thrown upon
this 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.
It was rambling and flippant throughout ; but as it did
address itself to one or two of the practical points of
the anti-corn-law question, it was more worthy of a
Man of sense to utter and of those who oppose the
views of his party to notice.
Mr. Cobden is at issue now, net only with his co-agi-
tators of the league; not only with the entire agricultural
interest; but with his own sentiments, uttered (as we trust
We shall be able hereafter to shew) during the present
Year, with respect to the effect of a free trade in corn
upon the cultivation of the corn lands of Great Britain.
Most other men, and Mr. Cobden himself, we repeat,
have contended that at least some soils must, by ad-
mitting the grain of other countries, duty free, be
thrown out of cultivation : but he is now „prepared to
contend that no such effect will be produced. And how

does he argue this, perhaps the important point of the
Whole question ? In the first place, he rakes up from
oblivion a pamphlet published eighteen years ago by a
tenant of Lord Wharncliffe's, on "The Valuing of Til-
lages and Farms," in which it is laid down as a rule,
that " when wheat is 40s. per quarter, the rental of the
best land should be 255. per acre ; and that the latter
should rise or fall ss. per acre, with every Bs. rise or
fall of the former. With regard to the poor soils, when
wheat is 40s. per quarter, the rent should be 6s. per
acre, varying in the same proportion as the best land—
viz., ss. per acre in rent for Bs. per quarter in price."
Assuming this calculation, then, to be a correct one,
he maintains that if wheat was reduced to 325. per
quarter, the best lands would still be worth 20s. per
acre, and the worst ls., and that, as "we know by his-
tory that land was let for 6d. an acre years ago, and
still it was cultivated and farmed, so if it was down to

6d. an acre now, it would be farmed."
Now, we ask seriously, does Mr. Cobden, or do any
of the congregated ladies who cheered this piece of ab-
surdity, suppose that any ten sensible farmers, or sen-
sible men of any profession, could be duped by such a
statement ? Putting out of view the dishonesty, upon
which we may remark hereafter, of this cool mode of
disposing of the rental of the owner of the soil, which
is not to " stand between the league" and the realiza-
tion of its designs, where is the parallellism of the cases
Put—the cultivation of land at one shilling per acre
rental now, and its cultivation at sixpence per acre
rental " years ago ?" What was the price of labour in
those "years ago ?" A PENNY A DAY ! What were
the prices of other commodities ? They were propor-
tional. The entire circumstances of the two eras were
80 different that no comparison can he drawn between
theth; and the very attempt to do so betrays an igno-
rance and a confidence in that of his auditors which is
Perfectly astounding !
But what, let us ask, is the authority upon whose
calculations this silly attempt to answer one of the most
grave objections tothe abolition of all protection to native
agriculture is founded ? The writer of the directions
for " Valuing Tillages and Farms"—whether those di-
rections are based upon correct or incorrect data we
shall not stop to inquire—was estimating the rental of
land at a period when the old corn law, with its limit
of 80s. per quarter, was in operation, and when low
Prices could only be produced by abundant harvests. It
i 8 perfectly possible that when such was the case his
figures might approach somewhat near to correctness ;
but to suppose that they can possibly apply, under the
°Peration of an entirely free trade, when low prices may
exist, although the harvests of the British farmer may
have proved an entire failure, is an assumption so wild
that it scarcely merits serious refutation.
Mr. Cobden may be quite at home when speaking,
111 parliament or elsewhere, upon matters appertaining
t° cotton and calico, exports and imports. He may,
with safety to the cause of which he assumes to be the
leading advocate, be permitted to string together the
Ninary fallacies in which he deals, for the amusement
°I a mob of millocrats and weavers, or the old women
who constitute the "great gatherings" and " grand fes-
tivals" got up by the Anti-Corn-Law League; but we
are satisfied, by this one specimen which he afforded us
" Friday evening, of his utter incapacity to argue the
broad question of free trade upon an arena, where mere
claptrap and sophistry are put hors de combat, and
men's minds are convinced by sterling facts and sound
reasoning. Enough, however, of so very small and so
vastly overrated a personage as Mr. Richard Cobden !

An
able writer, in the last number of The Church of
"91ancl Quarterly Review, has the following remarks,
14 an article entitled " The State of the Country."
After deprecating, and most justly, the principle that
4Qeiety must always be progressing, and that a govern-
-41,1 eat is bound to be for ever conceding to the
demands of the admirers of novelty in theory and in
im
%%lotion, the reviewer proceeds :—" We say, then,
tU Sir Robert Peel, we have had enough of change;
'lv secure to us some years of reflection, observation,
4.114 experience; and give a distinct and decisive nega-
-IWe to all that shall tend to re-agitate the public mind
41:1(1 prevent the good which you hope to accomplish
3' the measures you have taken for the relief of the
41,..allufacturers and other classes of the community.
4leet the cry of the Corn-law Repeal League by the
previous question. Meet the cry of the Radical poli-
tician for the 'Repeal of the Union,' for The Ballot,'
for
b Universal Suffrage,' for `The doing away with
Ecclesiastical Courts,' and for "The Abolition of
Church Rates,' by the previous question. Say to those
who
periodically agitate the country to its very centre
4' their false and dangerous theories, 'There is no
chance for you of success. We are determined to
lastore to society the reign of peace, order, and the
palva• We have a powerful and an almost omnipotent
ilairtY in this respect to back us. We have been placed
°ffiee to support and defend these principles ; and
e will discuss no more theories until the country
shall have settled down to a state of calmness and con-
fidence.'

To a great extent, we cordially coincide in these
view_
ha,.l of the writer in question. We say, too, "We
`e had enough of change." We say, "Secure to us
Ptoe
Years for reflection, observation, and experience."
feverish excitement— the panting anxiety for
Ofc'veltY—which has for years past existed in the minds
Lea great portion of the people of this country, cannot
tOO much deplored, or the principle condemned that
aoctant changes in legislation are for the advantage of
prtlati°o. We have ever deprecated, in statesmen, the
poaetice of conceding to the expression of mere
pePolar opinion, what conviction has not already dis-
di:ed them to concede, independent of such popular
it is Concession should never be granted when
atlas unaccompanied with conviction of its advantage ;
eon' We hold concession delayed, for one hour after such
v,lrietion, to be injustice and tyranny.
the 'e are far, however, from agreeing to the justice or
have v,„isdom of the advice which the reviewer would
Conservatives address to Sir Robert Peel. He
Rib misgivings with respect to the disposition of the
Allt-rn tII°o• Baronet to concede to the demands of the
free traders and levellers. So have we. And for
t-
io
verY reason—because we fear the want of firmness
iketile Premier to resist the popular outcry of these
hiti:Lns'lve would not depend ourselves, or teach
depend, upon the mere strength of a majority
'l4 e Rouse of Commons. We would not say,
..eet
the propositions of these men ,; r,vious