Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1847-03-20
HE DEMOCRAT-THE TARIFF
BRITISH CORN LAWS.

cepting tobacco, is the legitimate results of
the tariff of 1916. 1t does so by fairly and
candidly stating that it is "willng to ad-
nit that the value of the breadstuhis of this
country have gone up beyond what may
be expected to be stable market for them,
ON ACCOUNT of the potatoe rot and
the failure Of the grain crops in Europe"
This is a candid admission, and disposes
of that portion of the subject.
We will proceed to show that il is
wrong again. 1t says: "But the Times
will recolect, that simultaneous with, or
Immediately after the prohibitory duties
were taken off of foreign importations in
this country, the British Parliament re-
pealed their Corn Laws; and that the fet-
tiers thus taken off commerce, admitted the
free transportation of our surplus produce
TO England, which advanced the price at a
handsome rate, before any famine existed,
and which may be considered permanent. )"
We will not be particular about dates,
as TO the new tariff, and repeal of the
British Corn Laws; nor need we remind
the Democrat that Europe looked to the
United States, in part, TO furnish bread.
stutfs, TO make up the deficit growing out
of the failure of the potatoe crop, before
the alteration of our tariff, or the repeal of
the British Corn laws; these would make
up an article of themselves, and we pass
them over to notice the repeal of the Corn
Laws.
This act Of the British Parliament was
ostensibly put forth and hailed as a free
trade measure! when, in fact, it was
brought about for directly the reverse, viz
Protection. 1t is true, that their repeal
may exercise temporary effect on the
price of breadstuffs in this country-but
it will only be temporary, and will most
probably cost us dearly in the end. But
how can the repeal of the Corn Laws op.
crate as Protective Measure to Great
Britain? We shall answer this question by
quoting from one of the most sagacous
political authors of our day, CALVIN COL
TON, Esq.
THE corn laws were abolished ostentatiously,
at one swoop, to make an impression on the
worl especially on the people of the United
States-as if the British government were
approximating to the principles of free trade
whereas, they have never yet made an abatement
OF imposts, except on the principle OF protection
or to obtain an equivalent, or more than an
equivalent, in some other way. They were
forced, in 1915, to remove the duty Of half a
penny pound on raw cotton-for what ?--not
for free trade, as was pretended but 10 protect
their own manufacturers against those of the
United States and OF the continent. 1t was
necessary as measure Of national
policy 10 make food as cheap in England, as in
nations. 1t was a national ne
cessity; and therefore it was done.
Previously, however, by some ten years, to
the abolition OF the duty on raw cotton, the
in the north Of England disturbed
and menaced by the trades unions and the sys
tenn Of strikes for higher wages, removed, by
negotiation with the poor law commissioners,
10000 paupers from the southern counties, into
their mills, and thus defeated the unionists and
the strikers, and kept down wages,
1t now appears, that the primary and chief
object of the league for the abolition of the corn
laws, was for the benefit Of the manufacturing
system OF Great Britain, and that the former
interest was sacrfccd-if sacrfced-to save
greater one--one more vital 10 the British EN-.
pie and to keep down wages. The same
men, manufacturers (see first annual report OF
poor law commissioners who were engaged in
1884 in dragging paupers agains! their will, from
fl - Al Il
OF the north, professedly, as appears
from their letters to the commissioners, TO coun.
eract the trades unions and keep down the
other words. to keep down wages
were afterward enrolled among the most inAu
The corn laws; and Sir Robert Peel, naturally
with that system, which had been
10 him ''the goose that laid the golden egg" (his
immense fortune was made in manufacturing,)
and not less as great statesman, put the finish.
and protection OF the British manu-
featuring system, The first step was forcing the
paupers OF England, in 1884, into the manufac.
tories; the next was the removal OF duties on raw
cotton, in 1915; and the third was the abolition
of the corn laws in l846--all done on the prin.
cple OF protection, and to maintain the sytem OF
low wages, without which British manufactures,
the soul and bulwark Of the empire, must have
fallen. 1t is now confidently expected and
predicted, that, as soon as deoency will permit
the wages OF operatives in British manufactures
will be reduced, by a measure equal to the cheap.
enng OF their bread, that the benefit of the
Of the corn laws may accrue, not to the
laborers, but to their employers; in other words
10 the government; for the government support
these great interests, that they may support the
government. The amount Of wheat used for paste