The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-26 00:00:00

the Preperty Tax was in operation; but it it: unnecessary
to tronhle your Lordships with any long details to show
how the reduction of taxation must have operated bene-
ficially on the agricultural interest, as well as on all
other classes of the community. The reduction of tax-
ation operated directly to the benefit of the cultivator
of the soil, by enabling him to bring his commodities
into the market at less risk, and by ensuring to him a
remunerating price. I say then, looking to the circum-
stances under which your Lordships are called upon to ex-
amine these laws, and to consider whether the principle of
them should he maintained or not, and to what extent pro-
tection should be given, your Lordships ought not to lose
sight of the important change which has taken place with
respect to taxation. No man can fairly argue that the
question of taxation has no connection whatever with the
subject, unless he is prepared to say that he does not be-
lieve one word of all the petitions which have been laid on
the table of the House. The views which his Majesty's
Government has taken of this subject, and the principle
upon which the measure now before your Lordships is
founded, have been greatly misunderstood. I entirely deny
that the character of this measure is such as his been at-
tributed to it. It is not a question between protection and
no protection ; it is not a question between the establish-
ment of some new, untried, unheard-of theory, and a
system established by the wisdom of ages, and sanctioned
by the practical results of experience. lam as ready as
any man to admit that it would be perfect madness to
attempt, in this country, to abandon altogether the protec •
tion of the agricultural interest. lam satisfied that the
idea of legislating upon mere abstract theories, however
sound in themselves, is perfectly visionary, and that, to
carry into effect any schemß, founded upon such abstract
theories, would be utterly and physically impossible. lam
as ready as man can be to,give to the agricultural inte-
rest, as well as to every other interest, such a reasonable
share of protection as may not injure the interests of other
classes of the community, and thereby recoil upon the in-
terests of the very body which seeks to be protected.—
The question, I repeat, is not between protection and
no protection ; it is a question between one mode of pro-
tection and another—between one extent of protection and
another. It is not, I repeat, aquestion between some new,
untried and unheard-of theory, and the practical experience
of ages, for this measure is only a recurrence to the prin-
ciple on which the Corn Laws have uniformly been regu-
ated in this country, with the exception of the measure of
1815. The law of 1815, was in fact the greatest innova-
tion ever made upon the Corn Laws : till that law passed,
a positive prohibition of the importation of foreign corn was
unknown in the history of the country. The introduction
of foreign corn was always a matter of regulation ; it was
regulated in various ways and in different degrees, but never
prohibited. The proposition now before your Lordships
is not a new theory ; it is neither snore nor less than a re-
currence to the ancient system under which the agriculture
of the country flourished for centuries, and has been raised
to a pitch, at which it transcends the agriculture of all
the other countries of the world. It is not just to charac-
terise this proposition as a new, untried theory, resorted to
by speculative, cold-blooded economists, who look only to
the establishment of some favourite system, indifferent to
the interests of all who are affected by it. Whether these
be the sentiments of economists I know not, but for
myself I utterly disavow them. If I were capable of enter-
taining such sentiments—if I were capable of acting upon
such views, and of forgetting the interests of those
whom these laws will most materially affect, I should
be committing an act of suicidal folly. I should be
destroying my own interests, and those of all the
connexions which are most near and dear to me—for
the prosperity cf the agricultural interest is intimately
connected with the general prosperity of the country.
—Though I cannot pretend to any extraordinary wis-
dom, I think I may venture to say, that if a plan founded
upon some mere flight of fancy—upon the abstract specu-
lation of some cold-blooded philosopher—were now pro-
posed to your Lordships, it is not very probable that I
should be found among those who might be disposed to
advocate such a measure. If then lam justified in saying,
that the Government are not deserving cf any reproach,
but rather entitled to some degree of praise for bringing
this question under the consideration of Parliament ; if
there are circumstances in the situation of the country to-
tally different in many essential particulars from those
which existed in 1815, when the principle of exclusion up I
to a certain price was established ; if those circumstances
appear to justify the propriety of recurring to the princi-
ple which has for years existed to the benefit of the coun-
try, I am come to the point of having to satisfy your
Lordships, that the law we propose to alter, does of itself
involve consequences so prejudicial to the interests of the
farmer, to the interests of the landholder, and to the in-
terests of all classesof the community, as to render it, in my
judgment, an imperative duty upon your Lordships to con-
cur• in the removal of it. What is the objection to a sys-
tem of alternate prohibition, and unlimited importation?
I say unlimited, because I shall be able to show that the
limitation propoc-,1 by the Act of 1822 is in reality no
limitation, and that the law of 18a, as well as that of
1313, is affected with the original vice of the system of
alternate prohibition and unlimited prohibition. The evil
is this, that it is utterly impossible for any man, whether
a merchant connected with the trade in foreign corn, or
the grower of corn in this country, to know in what situ-
ation he is likely to be by the operation of that system.—
Though it may have the effect of keeping up a high impor-
tation price at one time, and of giving a certain degree of
artificial stimulus to the cultivator of the soil at home, it
necessarily gives a corresponding stimulus to those who
wish to avail themselves of the first moment at which the
ports open. Each class, is alternately availing itself of
these apparent advantages, reciprocally contributing to their
own ruin—

" Quisque suum populatus iter."
The necessary effect of a system of alternate prohibition and
unlimited admission is, that at the period of unlimited ad-
mission, corn is poured into the country from all quarters
of Europe, without any reference to the extent of the de-
mand. The law creates every motive to pour into the
country at such a period, all the corn that can he collected
from every part of the world. This is exactly the effect
whiCh was produced when the ports were opened on the
15th November, 1818, the sum of two pence below the
prohibition price having determined the opening of the
ports,.. No man can say whether this might not have been
the effect of fraud and combination ; at any rate, corn was
poured into the country without the slightest necessity, up
to the 15th February, 1819, and to that unlimited impor-
tation all the evidence before the Committee of 1821 as-
cribed the depression of the agricultural interest in the
years 1820, 1821, and 1822. Here was a practical view
of the evils of the system of alternate prohibition and un-
limited importation—evils, against a recurrence of which it
is the duty of your Lordships to guard. I am persuaded
that no man, who reflects upon this subject, can fail to
see the monstrous evils which may fall upon the cultiva-
tor of the soil under such a system. Suppose, for in-
stance, that, in consequence of indications in the course
of the summer giving the prospect of an unfavourable
harvest, the average price in the month of July should
rise to 80s., foreign corn would then be admitted
without any limitation, at a time of all others, I will ven-
ture to say, the most prejudicial to the interests of the far-
mer. No man can doubt the mischievous effects which
would result from a large importation taking place at
such a time in consequence of the mere apprehensions of a
deficient harvest, if it should turn out that the harvest were
not deficient. The mischief would then be done, and there
would be no remedy for it;, it would spread dismay over
the face of the country, and involve many persons in inex-
tricable difficulty, if not in ruin. These objections appear
sufficient to demonstrate the inefficacy and the danger of
the plan which I now propose to alter. But it may be
said, perhaps, that these objections were met by the Com-
mittee, and those evils removed by the alteration of the law
which took place in 182°. That alteration of the law, I
contend, effected no such thing. By the law of 1822, the
ports continue closed till the average price of six years
amounts to 705., and then the ports open under a duty of
I is. for the first three months. The object of the Com-
mittee was certainly to check importation ; but what is
the real effect of that alteration of the law, if the fact be
true upon which so much stress has been laid, that corn
mly be sold, with a profit to the grower, at so low a price,
in the foreign market? Supposing that corn may generally
be bought in the foreign market for 305., which, however,
I am not disposed to admit ; add 10s. for carriage, and 17s.
duty, and it will appear that corn, which would remune-
rate the grower at 575., would sell here at '7Ol. This
measure, therefore, so far from protecting the agriculturist,
would only lead to still further unlimited importation. If
indeed, the duty, instead of 175., were much higher, as, for
instance, 30s. or 405., this would operate as a check upon
importation; but such a duty wduld be inconsistent with the
whole principle of the measure, which adMits that when the
price is 70s. importation ought not to be impeded. I can-
not conceive, that the law of 1822 has any other advantage
over the law of 1815, except as it mitigates, in a certain.
degree, the severity of that by lowering the importation price
from 80s. to '7os. and thus advances one step towards a
more perfect and judicious system. If the system of alter-
nate prohibition and unlimited importation be calculated to
produce all the evils I have adverted to, what other course
can be adopted with regard to the trade in corn ? Would
it be advisable to have recourse to the system advocated by
some gentlemen, when the change of the law of 1815 was
under consideration namely—that of imposing, at all times
and under all possible circumstances, a high permanent