The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-15 00:00:00

Ithe growth of wheat, and which I shall take the liberty
of reading, to the House.—(The Nobk Lord read the ex-
tract in a low voice ; but the substance of the quotation
. was, that this fertile territory extended from the Lakes
in the mirth to Ohio in the south, embracing an area of
280,000 square miles, being twice as large as the king-
dom of France, and six times the size of England. It
contained 188,000,000 acres of land, and was irri-
gated by. or branching on the Ohio, the Wisconsin,
and the Mississippi. Within 21 years its popula-
tion had increased to the number of 3,000,000,• and it
was calculated that by the year 1850 it would have
swelled to the agregate of 6.000,000). Now, proceeded
the Noble Lord, this groat population, this vast extent of
fertile and arable land is removed from this country to
such a distance, that on the authority of Mr. Curtis
wheat could not be exported from those districts to our
ports for less than from 435. to 475. a quarter ; 'so that
the American could not be considered a competitor by
the English farmer, at least while there would be
no just grounds to regard the American farmer as
such, the people of that country would be great con-
sumers of your manufactures.—(llear, hear.) Ido be-
lieve that 6,000,000 of people inhabiting so fertile a
country would naturally prefer .the pursuit of agricul-
ture to manufactures.—(Cheers.). I believe that they
would he glad to receive your manufactures in exchange
for their food and exports—(Cheers)—for however the
manufacturers of the United States may be advancing,
they cannot yet give the bulk of the people
sufficient occupation, and it is probable that
they will not do so for a long time.—(Hear.)
You have it in your power to establish a commerce of
an extensive and useful kind—of giving food to the peo-
ple and employment to the poor and in future years of
enabling them to avoid that horrible distress which lute
prevailed of late—of bestowing comfort on the inhabitants
of this kingdom while they consume the products of dis-
tant countries.—(Hear, hear.) But., instead of this, you
say " We. have the power of legislation in our
hands, and we will use it to stop this great trade.—
(Hear, bear.) We have the power in our hands to
stop this accumulation of human comfort and prospe-
rity, and because we have the power, we undertake
to place a barrier against it."—(Loud cheers.) Sir,
such woul 1 be the effect of your continuance of
the sliding scale,—(Loud cheers.) Your commerce with
America in wheat and wheat-flour will be diminished ;
it will not be wholly stopped, but it will be greatly
diminished by the uncertainty of which I • speak.—
(Cheers.) Is it likely that merchants, 'with the
fear of that uncertainty before their eyes, will
enter into those speculations in corn ? They
considered it a gambling and speculating trade which it
was better he should not enter into. lam glad to find,
however, that the Right Hon. Baronet hesitates whether
he shall finally adopt putting a new obstacle on the
importation. of corn, not by a sliding scale, but by a
fixed duty on the flour, which would naturally come to
this country from the Western States by the canals and
the St. Lawrence. I trust the Right Hon. Gent.,
having hesitated at all will give up that pert of his
scheme; but even without that obstacle, is it not mon
strous that, legislating with regard to the corn
trade, and,
.indeed, legislating with respect
.to all other articles, you should say that the inhabitants
of the Black Sea and America should not be as free to send
their products here as to any other part of the world?—
(Cheers.) But the situation of America does not accord
with the objection which the Right Hon. Bart. has urged
as to the narrow circle from which you can expect corn,
those countries which have the same latitude and climate
with our own.—(Hear, hear.) That country is fit for
the production of corn, between the 36th end 43d de-
grees of north latitude. The objection was, that they
could not avoid dearness in certain years, either
by a fixed duty or by any other fixed plan.
We have a right, Sir, to reject the plan at pre-
sent proposed for one more consonant with the
maxims of trade—more consonant with the de-
ductions of science—and, above all, more conso-
nant with the petitions of. our suffering poPulation.
—(Loud cheers.) We have a right to do this, and
the produce of the world will thus be opened
to us, and we need not fear either such frequent
occurrence of periods of scarcity or the interruptions
of trade, or making the dependence of this coun-
try on • others an object of anxiety.(Hear, hear.)
If with with the universality of our commerce,
we have to protect our national interests, our formi-
dable navy—and our navy will always be formidable—
for the independence of our countryy we need not entertain
the slightest apprehension.—(Cheers.) Opposed then,
as I am, Sir, to the plan of a sliding scale, and thinking
that any plan founded on that basis ought to be re-
jected, I shall, if that plan be also presented,
be ready to discuss the subject with those who oppose
the laying on of any duty at all. I think that a moderate
fixed duty might be proposed with propriety; but what I
propose, in the present instance, is the rejection of the
plan proposed by her Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear,
hear.) If it should be found that there are no ex-
clusive burdens on agriculture—(Hear)—l should then
say, make such a provision of a duty, as shall prevent a
sudden change, and prevent the falling into distress of
great masses of agricultural labour. But if there
should be, as I believe there are, peculiar burdens
on agriculture. then impose a duty as moderate as you
possibly can, in consideration of those burdens. Do not
let us raise it a single shilling—not a single farthing.
above what is absolutely necessary. If there is, as the
Right Hon: Gentleman states that there is,..an advantage
in submitting ,to restrictions for the sake of 'the general
interest, this argument, to be unconquerable, must
be supported by good and sensible reasons.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, for a fixed duty we have,
for a sliding-scale it is not possible to have, such reasons.
It must be said in favour of a fixed duty that it has
been recommended at different times by persons of great
authority.—(Bear, hear.) The first recommendation
is from Mr. Malthus,. who in 1815 proposed, after
a certain time that the duty shOuld become fixed,
at 10s. His proposal for a duty on foreign corn was
that it should be first 20s. and fall is.. year by year,
till it came to 10s., where it should remain. Mr.
Maculloch, another advocate for a fixed duty, stated
that, instead of the burdens of agriculture being equi-
valent. to a fixed duty of' los., that a ditty of ss.
would be a full protection.--(Hear.) The Committee
of 1821, which comprised many persons eminent in agri-
cultere, among others, the Hon. Gentleman the Pay-
'master of the Forces, Sir T: Gooehe and many persons
of all classee and all opinions, also recommended a
fixed duty.
Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed his dissent.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Does the Right _Honour-
able*Gentleman dispute that ? The Report begins
by expressing a doubt whether there can be any
solid foundation for agricultural prosperity except by
abstaining as far as possible from legislative interference
with agriculture, either by protection or prohibition of
importation.—(Loud cheers.) The report then goes on
to state that agriculture had flourished most when
a free importation of corn had been allowed.—(The Noble
Lord proceeded to read various extraetslfrom the Report
of the Committee alluded to ; from which it appeared
that the Committee recommended a modification of the
existing law, which produced much inconvenience from
the sudden manner in which the ports were opened under
its enactments, and the consequent sudden influx of corn
into the market, and suggested a remedy that, whenever
the ports were open, corn should be admitted at a fixed
duty. The reading of this extract was followed by loud
cheering and counter cheering.) Permit me to observe,
that although the Committee recommends a fixed duty,
I cannot but think that the person who drew up the
Report, and who so well explained and understood
the principles of free trade,
and so anxiously
advised an adoption of those principles, must i
have, when ' he recommended it, considered the
best
probablyadoption o f a fixed Idi thi tey
could:ts aas the
hear)—but must have looked forward to the tt ttmate
toebnitapion'afft)illie'etaismlier—sle, (Hear,.
adoption of the great principle which he had so distinctly
laid down in the commencement of the Report, and have
considered that the time would at length arrive when all
protection and all prohibition should cease.—(Cheers.)
Mr. Huskisson was a party to the Bill of 1627. He was
likewise a party to the Bill of 1828 ; but in 1830, in the
last speech which he ever made on the subject in this
House, he stated, that he doubted whether it could be pos-
sible, with our present system of taxation, to keep up our
present system of Corn-laws.— ( Isoud cheers.) Mr.
Huskisson was a man who thoroughly understood
the principles of trade. He always advocated the
principles of free trade, and always endeavoured to carry
them out, as far as he thought he prudently could do
so. One of the objections to a plan of a fixed duty is,
that it would in times of scarcity prevent an adequate
supply front coming into the market. When 1
had the honour to propose a plan for a
fixed duty to the House, I stated my belief that
the imposition of a fixed duty would in a great measure
prevent the occurrence of scarcity by securing a constant
and regular supply; but, at the same tune, I stated there
might be various methods of preventing a fixed duty
acting in such a manner in times of scarcity, and one
of the remedies was to give to the Government the
power of opening the ports under certain circumstances.
I think that may be better than the view taken by the
CoMmittee of 1821. It may, perhaps, be better that at
a certain point, 735. or 745., there should be no duty.—
(Great cheering from the Ministerial side of the House.)
I say that is matter for consideration. I proposed
before that in case of scarcity there should be a
discretionary power allowed to the Crown, and I now say,
as' an alternative, that it should be considered whether
in the case of high prices, the duty should not cease.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman stated the
other night, that it would be necessary for the pur-
pose of the Tithe 'Commutation Act, that the system
of averages should he kept up.—(Loud cheers.) But
what he stated more particularly was, that if you
had corn very cheap there would be such abund-
ance from foreign countries, that then the English
agriculturists would be ruined by the competition ; and
he stated if you have corn very dear, then the keeping
up of a fixed duty would he an evil and a grievance.
With respect to the former of these objections, I- think
the protection to the farmer is the cheapnessL--(Cheers)
of the abundant year. If you choose tb take any
year since 1831, you will find that there has never
been a less price than 365., and with the cost of freight
andimportation, at the most statement, that
was the lowest price
at which the English farmer
sold in 1831. Then with
a greater advantage iv
1,.a s impression
respect to dear years, I am
merchant than to the English ready, and always was ready
given by
would
b to say, although I. think
must consider theit to the foreign
originally 1
made agriculturist—yet
ori ti e
public sv- e
duty when
ne
Z;11 the
or Parliament. I and must relax the
authority of the Executive
proposedco:
done by the Executive.
important is, that you should have That which is really
you should never have duties that would shut out
corn; if you must have a duty let it be istant to be
It might- produce some
evil as easy as possible.
no evil like that which is attached ts
os but there is
the plan proposed
by the Government. There is another
ject upon which
I stave not fala.rdt a
of the sub-
word
and which the . Right honourable Gentleman'