SUBMISSION TO THE CORN-LAWS.
THE British manufacturing interest is always spoken of' in Par- liament in complimentary phrase. The wealth, intelligence, and activity of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow, &c. are represented as the mainsprings of national prosperity. But the policy of Parliament is to curtail that prosperity by crip- pling the power that produces it. Most effectually is that end accomplished by the Corn-laws. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in a petition to Parliament, declares- " That the restrictions on the importation of foreign corn, which give the 13ritish landholder a monopoly of the supply of that article, raise the price of food in this country, Duel to that extent offer a bounty in favour of the foreign manufacturer ; whilst, at the same time, they deprive the British menthe- turer of all the benefits he would enjoy f rom the demand fur our manufactures in those countries which could make the most favourable return for our exports to them in corn.
"That the injurious consequences of the Corn-laws are at present most severely felt by the hand-loom weavers ; who, for years past, have had to con- tend, not only with impr‘vements in machinery, but also with the constant transfer of their employment to foreign countries, where food and labour are cheap ; and until those laws be repealed, your petitioners can holdout no hopes of permanent improvement in the condition of that large and suffering class. "That, in addition to the evils already felt by your petitioners, the Corn. laws are a further source of national impoverishment and distress, by their natural tendency to incite other countries to impose on our trade coun- tervailing restrictions, the severity of which is constantly increasing."
All this is undeniably true. The linen manufacturers of Leeds,
Dundee, and Belfast, have had recent experience of the77 creasing severity" of French "countervailing restrictions;" and it may be safely assumed that without a change in the British commercial system, the evil will be extended every year. The wealthy men of Leeds may drink sparkling Moselle by the hogs. head, but they will not be able to force a permanent market for their woollens by their utmost potatorial exertions. Such is the prospect of' the manufacturing interest. It might be supposea that, under these circumstances, something like a combined re- sistance would be made to the landowner's monopoly. But nothing of the kind is attempted. The Leeds Mercury, referring to the Manchester petition, says that "all other manufacturing and commercial towns ought to follow the example of Man. chester ;" but there is no symptom of' a concerted movement. The hand-loom weavers are in a state little short of starvation; and the recent accounts from the United States do not encourage the hope of such a revival of trade as might lead to their employment on better wages. The suffering hut ignorant persons who vainly clamour against the combination and high profits of theirem. ployers, deserve compassion ; the intelligent and powerful class, called the manufacturing " interest," have only themselves te blame if their gains are diminished and their capital put in peril by actual and anticipated encroachment of foreign rivals. In the present Ministry there are several representatives of large manufacturing towns, who might be Members for some rotten boroughs under the Duke of NEWCASTLE'S patronage, for any care they take either of commerce or manufactures. Why? Because their constituents wink at their imbecility and neglect of duty. The West India interest can defend itself, as the people of this country know to their cost ; the Government dreads collisioa with the shipowners ; the fundholders have adopted the motto "don't touch us;" the Church (another great trading corporation) is ever on the alert to keep all and get all it can ; and as for the landowners, they are, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL says they ought to be, predominant in the Legislature. Where is the evidence of equal activity and resolution on the part of the master manufac- turers, who might wield the energies of the operative classes, Ca. pable of being made, from their concentration and superior vigour, by far the most powerful class in the country ? The real inte- rests of masters and men are the same, and identical with thole of the nation at large : but the masters will not put themselves at the head of the men—they will not organize that combined move- ment on the Parliament and the Ministry, in default of which their politico-economical petitions are more waste paper. The Manchester Times, referring to Mr. POULETT THOMSON'S skulking on the Ballot, says- " We speak advisedly when we say, that the electors of Manchester wit no longer be satisfied that its Representative is not with them on this qua. tion, but will require, as the condition of their votes, that he shall vote for the Ballot ; without the carrying of which question, aey see not how he eke bring his Own principles of free trade into operation. Lord John Russell has not only acknowledged that, under the Reform Act, the lauded interest hue preponderance in the House of Commons, but has avowed that it ought to hive a preponderance. While, therefore, the representative system remains as it now stands, there is not the slightest chance of the repeal of the starvatios• creating Corn-bill."
Were the repeal of the Corn-laws merely a political improve. ment, Mr. PRENTICE'S remarks would be perfectly applicable. No organic reforms can be expected from the present House of corn. mons. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to rouse such a spirit out of doors on any merely political question as would com- pel either branch of the Legislature to abandon its Conservatism. But it remains to be proved that an energetic, persevering, and combined effort for the abolition of the Corn-laws must fail; for no such effort has ever been made yet. Till multitudinous vigour M this direction is exerted, the members of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and other sufferers by the present restriction on trade, may as well spare themselves the trouble of getting up petitions. They should back their prayers in the only effectual way—that is, combine to turn out the Members who will not support them by their votes in the Cabinet and the House of Commons. That species of argument would receise attention from Mr. POULETT THOMSON, Sir HENRY PARNELL, Sir JORN HOBHOUSE, Mr. PARKER, and other Members for commercial places, whether their party politics were Tory, Whig, or Radical.
Previous page
