The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-04-11
BRITISH CORN LAWS.

BRITISH CORN LAWS.
The following remarks are said to have been
made by Sir Peel, present premier of England,
in debate on the corn laws, and coming from
such source, may be considered as particular
ly important with reference TO our own country.
We have never attached any weight to the OPT
mons of those who imagine that Great Britain
will ever suffer her agricultural interest to be
sacrificed, at the solicitation of the manuiactu-
rers, who, entitled as they certainly are TO re-
| spect, bear no comparison with the cultivators
OF the soil, either on the score of wealth or
numbers Our relations with the mother copn-
try being commercial, persons are apt to attach
undue weight to what is termed the mercantile
and manufacturing interests, which are, after
all, secondary. British statesmen very properly
look to wealth as the basis of taxation, and In
asmuch as the landed interest is the foundation
on which the capacity of the country for taxation
rests, il is unphilosophical to suppose that any
formidable party can be found TO advocate the
introduction of foreign bread stufs to the mani
fest and vital injury Of land-holders at home.
| Sir Robert Peel having stated in the main debate
than an order for wheat had been sent from Liverpool
to New York and the cargo returned 10 six weeks,
Sir Charles Napier ridiculed the idea that such rapid
transmit could be at all relied on, and moved for re
turns of all vessels that arrived al Liverpool from Anne
rca loaded with corn from the first Of January, lS4
to the first of January, 1872 specifying the number of
days that they were their passage" This motion
agreed to, if the information could be Furnished;
and also additional motion, for return of the guam
tty of flour brought by American vessels to Ii
vepoo with the number OF days such vessels were on
| their passage.
| On the Isl, Lord Sandon, member for Liverpool,
spoke strongly against the facilities that would be given
under the bill to the American merchants to the dis
paragement of the mIlers of this country. 1t was TO
the interest Of the former to import flour instead OF
corn the former paying less duty. Sir Robert Peel
| reply is so important, coming it does from the
premier of England, that | cannot but solicit to it
| your most marked attention. ~
He condemned the policy of Lord Sandon, de
clared that the question had been fully considered in
lS27-and every barrel of 1876 lbs of flour was then
made subject to duty equal to that paid on bushels
| or 40 gallons of wheat, and subsequently to the
amount payable on 49, gallons of wheat That law
existed at present. But" and now quote Sir Ro-
! bet's own remarkable words, iii the proposition of
the noble lord were adopted what two counlrs would
| suffer most by the change2 Those two countries
with which we most wished to encourage commerce
| Canada and the United States Of North America.
Now in the first place, our relations with the United
States were SUCH that if wished to place any
| try on an advantageous footing compared with
| others in this respect he believed there not any
| man who would deny to the U S that advantage IT,
| for instance, looked to Russia and to the amount
of our exports thther he believed that would
deny that ought to give the preference to the u.
States. But If any departure be made from his plan
that depar woudte most against the U. ). with
whom it most material for to maintain our
present relations in this respect America
would conceive the measure TO arise from some Turk
ing anmosity and this country would lay itself open
| to the danger of ret alialon
On the motion that British Colonial grain be i'm
ported here at all times, at duty of one shilling
quarter, Lord Stanley, the Secretary for the Colo
MES, said there was no person more deslrous thap
| himself to see every impeachment removed which in
| terfered with the commercial intercourse between
England and the United States but it was unneces-
sary for him to state that nearly the whole of the
-four imported into this country from Canada was
the growth of the United Stetes. For that reason
he objected to the motion, and persevered in duty
| of SIS upon Canadian flour and wheat" The motion
was lost-for it, 3S, against it, l35--maJorty, 81.
In this discussion, Mr. Gladstone, the Vice Pres-
dent of the Board Of Trade, explained the reasons
for his proposition to impose tax of two shngs a
barrel the importation Of American -four across
| the Canadian border. At present nothing can be
more anomalous than the state of the trade between
the different Colonies Canada claimed protection
for her Importation of corn and flour to the other
Colonies of North America and the West Indies,
whilst she herself was enabled to impot the produce
of the United States free Of duty. 1t unjust that
New Foundland jamaica Sc, should be prevented
from purchasing provisions in the cheapest markets,
whilst Canada could supply herself from the produce
of the States, and at the same time secure an artif
cia price for her own grain in the sister Dependent
cies For the future Is per barrel must be paid up
on all American -four imported into Canada, also IN
to the other North American Colonies and the West
Indies, in some of which ports duty of five shll-
| lings now levied