The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-17 00:00:00

1 lam sure, will agree with me, that in that respect the scale
does not afford the advantage which the Right Hon. Baronet
I stated. But, Sir, I have no hesitation in stating, that I am an
advocate for a fixed duty. I am not an advo-
cate for a fixed duty, upon the principle on which
some who have spoken support this sliding scale,
namely, upon the principle of affording protection to agriculture.
I am adverse, on general principles, to the doctrine of protection
at all. I am sure that if you enter into a calculation for the
purpose of distributing the amount of protection according to
fair proportions between your agricultural, your manufacturing,
your shipping, and your commercial interests, you get into a
labyrinth of difficulties from which there is no satisfactory
escape.—( Hear, hear.) Ido not agree with the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Dorchester, who, in a speech which
he made recently to his constituents, held the doctrine which
was somewhat repudiated by the Right Hon. Baronet this
evening, namely, that your sliding scale, or your duties, what-
ever they may be, ought to be so constructed that the grower
of corn should, in times of diminished production, obtain,
through an increase of price, compensation for the scantiness of
his produce. Why, Sir, what is that but saying, in other terms,
that the consumer is to ensure the grower of corn
against vicissitudes of season which are the necessary and na-
tural contingencies to which the trade in corn is subject ?
( Cheers from the Opposition.) Why, Sir, you do riot do
that in other cases. (Hear, hear.) You do not call upon the
consumer to insure the merchant against the loss of his car-
goes by accidents at sea, or against any deterioration which
may take place in the freight of his vessel. In cases
of a scanty supply, you send to other countries to
mak up the delicienecy ; and you do not forbid
the further entrance of a commodity, in order that by
the increase in price you may compensate the merchant for the
diminution in quantity. Then, Sir, I cannot admit the just-
ness of applying that principle to the agricultural interest. I
say that those who hold land and those who cultivate land,
should take into their calculation those vicissitudes of season which
are the necessary incidents of their trade. On the other hand
I would say that I am not an advocate for a fixed duty upon the
ground on which the Right Hun. Baronet rests his scale—
namely, that it would,'up to a certain point, favour the producer,
and that then it would favour the consumer. My notion is,
that taxes and duties should be levied for the purpose of re-
venue, and for the purpose of revenue alone.—( Hear, hear.)
We must have an army, we must have a navy, we must have
civil establishments, and we must provide for their proper
maintenance. For those purposes a revenue is required ; and
I cannot see myself any reason why the importation of corn
from abroad should not he a fair subject on which to levy such
a moderate duty as would not materially interfere with the
abundance of the supply of that article.— (Hear, hear, hear. )
Now, Sir, these are the grounds on which I object to the
sliding scale ; and I must say, that in the whole of
the remarks of the Right Honourable Baronet, whether in
the speech upon the present occasion or upon this, I do not
remember to have heard any arguments either in favour of a
sliding scale as opposed to a fixed duty, or in favour
of the amended scale in opposition to that which
now exists, which to my mind were conclusive and satisfactory.
The Right Hon, Baronet has stated the reasons why the pre-
sent is not an unfit time for making a change in the present
law. But he omitted altogether to state the reasons why such
a change was necessary—he omitted altogether to explain to
the House what are the evils arising out of the present scale,
which make it, in the opinion of the Government,
expedient to alter that scale, and to substitute another
in its stead. Was that omission accidental? I do
not believe it was. The Right Hon. Baronet is too able and
' experienced a leader to enter the arena of this House leaving
behind him any weapon which he could believe might be
useful to him in the fight. (Hear, hear.) But
he must have . felt—he must have well known—
that every argument he could adduce against the present sys-
tem—every explanation and detail into which he might enter,
1 in order to show the bail working of the system, and the de-
sireableness of effecting a change in it, would be an argument
to a certain extent, at least, against the proposition he had
introduce.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet very
prudently as I think,• has abstained from giving the reasons
which induced the Government to make any change in the
pa sent law. If he was to state that a change was desirable,
in order to conciliate public opinion, or to diminish
the present distress, he knew that such an admission would
lead him much too far. But if he did not state why the change
should be made, he stated reasons why no change was neees- i
sary. He did not admit that distress arose from the present
system of Corn-laws—he did not admit that a change
in that system would do much good to any one, although he
alleged that it would not do much harm .to any one. The
nearest approach to a reason for the change is that which we
have heard this night—that the agriculturists have now too
much protection, and that therefore they can afford, without
loss or inconvenience to themselves— ( Hear)—to part with
a portion of it, to make a sacrifice of that superfluity, in
consideration of the feelings of the public at large. Now, I
say that a sliding scale, modify it as you will, contains in its
very fundamental principles defects and evils, which render it
the far less expedient mode of laying a tax upon fo-
reign corn than a fixed and permanent duty.—( Hear. )
Let your duty be fixed, assuming always that duty to be mode-
rate. We proposed a duty of Bs. last year, but the Rightlflon.
Baronet has almost convinced me to-night that the duty was
too high.—( Hear, hear.) He has taken great pains
to show that that duty would be as high as the
duty under the scale which he intends to introduce.
I do not quite admit the force of his reasoning on that
head ; but I say that the principle for which we contend is
that the duty should be fixed and low, and the principle to
which we object is that the duty should vary with the price
of the article. If the duty were fixed the trade in
corn would assume a totally different character,
It would acquire a totally different range of transactions. In-
stead of being a gambling transaction at home—instead of
Leing a scramble for corn in neighbouring markets—instead of
being a trade that scarcely touches the more distant markets,
it would become a steady and regular commerce-by barter. The
merchants engaged in that commerce would then make their
arrangements with forecast and beforehand. They would
make their arrangements to receive their corn from
the Continent, where it was best produced, and
to bring it home at the period when they thought
it could best be disposed of in this country.—( Hear, hear.)
You would then have an extension of your commerce with
countries like the United States of America. Your
commerce would not then consist of purchases of corn
for bullion, but would become a regular commerce
consisting of an interchange of merchandise on the one hand,
and of corn on the other. Now, what is the course of your
corn trade as it at present stands? Why no man can tell Irons
year to year, or hardly from month to month, whether the trade
in corn, and the price of corn will be, such as to make it
worth his while to import any quantity from abroad. Parties
waited, therefore, till a bad season produced a rise in prices in
the home market ; and what they did they do then ? They
ran in a hurry to the nearest market in order that they might
get an immediate supply. But did they find
the supply prepared with reference to the demands of the Eng-
lish market? No, they did not, because the foreign dealer in
corn would act imprudently in locking up any great quantity
of corn for the English market, not knowing whether,
for one, two, or three years, he might be able
to send it over to this country while his capital should in the
meantime lie dead upon his hands. The corn we introduced
was the corn which happened to be saleable in some great
seaport town. But corn did not grow in towns. The corn
imported was not corn grown in the neighbourhaod of large
towns,because in such neighbourhoods the supply was not greater
than the consumption on the•spot. Any considerableiportion of
corn must come from the interior of the country, and subject
of course to the expense of transfer, and liable to the delay
which must take place before it is brought to any port. But
the merchant is in a hurry—he is afraid his fellow rivals may get
the start of him, and by the introduction of a large quantity
lower the price, and raise the duty. Merchants compete with
merchants—they raise the price at the port of embarka-
tion, and they are obliged to pay the foreigner perhaps
twice as much as they should have paid if the duty
was steady and regular, and of a natural character.
That was all money thrown away. That money, however,
might be turned into revenue to this country, instead of being
thus left as a profit to the foreign merchant or the speculators
on the spot. Then was that the only loss 2 It was clear that it
was not. You want corn from a particular place,
but not only must you pay a higher freight, but you must pay
for vessels to be found upon the spot ; whereas if a regular trade
was carried on, British vessels would go out in cargo,
would come back with a cargo of corn, and that profit of the
trade would go to the British instead of the foreign shipowner.
The consequence would be that they must send bullion to pay
for their corn ; that would have to be taken from the Bank;
that would change the currency, and d stress and bankruptcy
would follow. I think that a due consideration of
their own interest would lead those who are owners
of the soil, to prefer a system that would prevent
sacrificesuc hproiefesthetervaenunualifincoitme.
country,
werelh.osaettweenrdeedthe withevils
bysotmhe
sliding scale. As regarded the internal state of the
e
persons engaged in trade felt the ill effect of such regulations,
because every foreign country, when you ask them.
to l m
treaties of
losing commerce,
by tauntres restrictive
tvwith
duties,the t
artiLmaYrkoeuts are
'
gradually
wt
nhdiocshtvyyou e
eh:lm
pea
dee easnsd, e
vatnpdpled. yourl hma
vaen übfeaecnt utroelsd ,
not-
an
t _
,tvs,
oi tohlsdt aenasd
tilnyg
surmounts,
int ho iosn,
ta
suchte commercial
ocsoi unngt rtyhlaitk et
it did
1 asnod,
that is no answer; but by those laws you injure commerce,
wa
rhei cthh
ey ee uv i
Ims
oi might h thee eschudrten
gb ys e
aal de
,o pt
anding t ouro
these
p
h esrei nncoitpahl
ntei . s
wdeeTi
been
answer has
ahet
aseas.
bweeen gbiavveen bbeyenanytopledrsotno
commercial but in a politiewalheoponosihniidates
told that a great country like this ought to be independent of
rosftptivaikseewa.n oin
Woe hyave
t
foreign nations for its supply of food. I would venture to
say, that although the Right Hon. Baronet admitted there were
exceptions, those who voted with him would be influenced by that
principle. Those who depended upon foreign commerce fur
the means, by which they are to buy their bread, are, for all
practical purposes, as much dependent upon foreign nations for
their food and existence, as if that food was grown in foreign
countries. A man may starve in the midst of plenty if he
has e not the means of purchasing the necassaries
of life.—(Hear.) Such an event took place in Ireland.
In that country, while the greatest distress prevailed, and
while the people were dying for food, cargoes of wheat left
the market because the people had not the means of purchas-
ing such costly subsistence, and, therefore, I contend that it is
fallacious to say that in a country, a large portion of whose peo-
ple subsist by foreign commerce, and whose means of purchasing
depends on foreigners and their productions, , it is perfectly
fallacious to say that such a nation can by any arrangemest
or contrivance, render itself independent of foreign nations.
Why is it that this earth which we inhabit is divided into such
distinct climates. Why is it that different coun-
tries produce different productions while almost
every nation have similar wants ? Why is it
that this earth is intersected by mighty rivers, forming high-
ways from one part of it to another, or why is it that lands
are brought together by that mighty ocean which seems in-
tended to divide them? Why, it is that man may be dependent
upon man.—(Cheers.) It is, that the exchange of commodi-
ties may be accompanied by the extension and diffusion of
knowledge. It is that the exchange of benefits may conciliate
ties may be accompanied by the extension and diffusion of
knowledge. It is that the exchange of benefits may conciliate
and strengthen the affection that man bears to man. —( Cheers. )
And thus will Commerce, issuing forth with civilisation in
owthihteein;hlitahhneadys
scatrenepadtienl,eiading Peace in the other, render mankind
happier, wiser, better.—(Cheers.) These are the dispen-
sations of Providence—these se are the decreos of that power
energiesnani
night's
perseiduoedbf
prejudice.-.-(Cheers.)
(Cheers)—the dealers in theirdisposed arrogant
universe.—(
presumptuous H
sliding ea r. )s c
follyaßl
eust,
(Cheers)—thinking to cast puny shackles around the inborn
lation—(Great cheering)—in the place- lof the standing laws
of Nature. lam convinced, whatever.may be the result of this
shall arrive, there will inwlso
I a m satisfied that the strong hand
of truth will at last sweepB. ) will prove too powerful for error
I._n):
h(aacntldh
rkeeenaroson attempting to set u s their miserable legis-
but I hope that
air.—( Cheers.
thet h interval r vsaultnb.rei
nmgus
, that before that •
away those cobwebs of delusion ,and
with much patience, and that we may look for abde
but I trust a speedy, diffusion
this subject. The seedsot of more enlightened principles on
ebwiallnd
this discussion of the Corn laws,
that have been sown during
policy.—( Hear,
vain, but will bear their- a".egerbpaod mi-
sery,runa el
have riot been sown in
fruit. The Government has
made one step, though
and have quitted their entr;enlchhmoents, as if
hear.)
arosmall one, in the course
of :sound li
in-
tention to stand an assault
to move down from their fortress a They have broken ground
it is now their
pe that having once got them
and to meet on the plain, that