The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-20 00:00:00

thought it a . legitimate source of revenue, and desirable
as a moderate protection to the agriculturist. Not one
of their Lordships had stated what would be the ef-
fect of introducing these towns into the averages, and he con-
sidered that they were legislating quite in the dark on this
übject. How could they legislate with c)rrectness on. this
subject, when < he and all their Lordships were in total igno-
rance as to the effect of introducing these towns into the ave-
rages? t For these grounds he objected to this part of the
proposition. lie admitted this Bill was a very considerable
improvement on the old law, but it was not such a one as he
wished to see; it would not cause a fair, wholesome, and legi.
timate trade in. corn. It still left the idea of prohibitory du-
ties in the public mind, and the stigma of monopoly would still
adhere to the agriculturists • without their receiving that ad.
vantage which they had hitherto received. For these grounds
he could not approve of the measure as a whole, and he
should therefore vote for the amendment of his Noble Friend.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said he congratulated his
Noble Friend who had just sat down, that though he
lid not so much approve of the Government measure
as to be able to vote for it, yet that he considered
it a great improvement upon the old law. He (the Marquis
of Salisbury) considered that there were two grounds on which
the Government should afford protection to the agriculturists;
the first was the necessity of giving food to the people inde-
pendently of foreign nations, and the second was that that
same protection should be given to agriculture as to every
other branch of industry. The question he apprehended ought
to be, the amount of protection which should be given to the
home growers to enable them to compete with the foreigner.
The average price of wheat under the old system was 565., it
would be the same under the new ; and he considered that
though by the proposed plan there would be a reduction of
duty, there would not be a reduction of protection to agricul-
ture. He did not blame the Government for making their
alterations in the Corn-laws; no doubt they arose from the
great agitation which was raised on the question.—( Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord, when in office, endeavoured by every
means in his power, to raise this agitation on the question ;
what motive he had for such a course it was not for him—( the
Marquis of Salisbury)—to say, but he certainly had
raised that agitation, in consequence of the agitation which
wasraised,
theseitato
in andalterations
had been made. The Noble
Earl no doubt thought that there would be a great reduction in
the price; of bread by such an alteration, in that idea, how-
ever, he (the Marquis of Salsbury) could not concur. With re-
gard to a fixed duty, his opinion was that, put it high or put it
low, it was no protection to agriculture : he saw no such fair
way of affording protection to corn as by a graduated scale.
Lord PORTMAN said he must confess that he differed
ent.rely from the Noble Lord who had just sat down. He
thought that this proposition by no means tended to settle this
most important question. Ile believed it never could be
settled tiel it was placed won a principle which should be clear
' and intelligible to all mankind.—( Hear.) The Noble Earl,
the President of the Board of Trade, at the time when he
was on the Agricultural Committee in 1821, told the
agricultural interest that they were to expect a time
when these things should be settled, and they must look
to a fixed duty as the only settlement, which should
be applied as soon as it could be applied with safety. He
(Lord Portman) hail always been an advocate for a fixed
duty, and he had always looked forward to the time when
that should arrive, though he must confess that his expectations
had been somewhat damped by what had fallen from the Noble
Earl to-night ; yet he hoped that theNoblcEarl might, at some
future time, be led to give way to the proposition of a fixed duty,
as he did now to what he was pleased to term aeliminution in the
sliding scale. From the Report which the Committee had
issued in 1821, it appears that they had prophesied most cor-
rectly as to what would happen now, and if sa, why should we
not follow the remedy they had pointed out ? That was a
fixed duty.—( Hear.) The Noble Earl said he desired to
protect the agriculturist and the consumer by taking away the
temptations to commit fraud; but still the speculator had the
inducement of 18s. to raise the price from 645. to 725. London
ought to be added to the towns from which the averages were
to be taken. When he was in the House of Commons, in
1827, he.moved a clause to that effect. The new Bill was bad,
because it would unsettle everything between landlord aed
tenant. No man could make a bargain under it, whatever the
Noble Earl might say. If this Bill failed, it would be the
complete extinction of the sliding scale. :low, then, could they
propose a fixed duty ?—( Hear, hear.) How could they secure
that preference which the English farmer ought, in the opinion
of all classes, to have over the foreigner? This Bill would
not atop the agitation in the Corn-laws which the
Ministry had encouraged.—(( Hear, hear.) It would net
strike down the enemy, but it c ould encourage them. He
must most strenuously oppose the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WIN CHILSEA defended the Bill, as having
the same principle of protection that all the former Corn-laws
had had ; it would give greater protection to the landed interest
than the present one had, for it would save them from the
frauds of corn-factors. He should most strenuously oppose a
fixed duty as a protection of the agriculturists, for when corn
was low, it was no protection, and when it was high, it would
not be maintained.—( " Question.")
Lord MON TEA GLE would vote for the Bill, as a great
improvement in the existing law, as discouraging frauds on the
farmer, and diminishing duties on the consumers.—( Hear,
hear.) But he agreed that it could not be considered as a
final measure. The population of Great Britain had increased
8,200,000 souls since 1801. Where were we to proviSe
for this vast accession ? Not at home, but in foreign coun-
tries. The population was increasing far beyond our means to
feed them. This fact alone proved that the present Bill could
not be final. But he was sure no practical man could defend
the sliding scale. Not an experienced merchant of authority
in the City of London would approve of it. In the whole of
the tariff the principle of a sliding scale was not applied to
any other article, and he wished to know how it could be de-
fended in its application to corn: He objected to the sliding
scale on account of its absurdity, and the uncertainty in trade
to which it gave rise. He also objected to it on the ground of
the inequality of its pressure on America.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
He recollected, when Mr. Webster was in this coun-
try, that he said that the people of America had
corn ready to pay those to whom they owed money in this
country, if they took it from them.—( Hear. ) The introduc-
tion of sew towns showed that the system of a sliding scale was
vicious, and that the viciousness of it was perceived.—( Hear. )
He also objected to the Bill because it injured the persons whom
it was intended to benefit. Bad, unjust legislation, was sore to
react on those who sought it. It was of the greatest benefit to
the agriculturists of this country that they could import dry and
fresh wheat from abroad. The system of a sliding scale was
also the cause of fluctuations in price, though he admitted the
proposed Bill was, in that respect, an improvement on the pre-
sent law. But it would not only be the cause of fluctuation of
price in this country, but even abroad. Dantzic would be dis-
turbed to a considerable extent Isy the operation of that sys-
tem. ( The Noble Lord here referred to the opinions of Mr.
Tooke and Sir W. Curtis, to show that fluctuation was the natu-
ral consequence of the sliding system.) With respect to the
amount of revenue which was expected from the proposed sys-
tem, he should like to hear the opinion of the Noble Lord
(Ripon). The truth was, the Noble Lord put himself in,o a
difficulty on the subject. He supposed the Noble Lord would
not for the world receive 6d. of revenue from the food of the
people.—( Laughter.) He remembered that last year the
Noble Lord had said that the Corn-law could be maintained
only on the principle of protection ; and that being the case,
lie thought the Noble Earl was strangely uncommunicative as
to the am: tint he expected to receive.—( Hear, hear.) The
tact was, that every duty would be pro tanto productive ; but
the system of a fixed duty would produce a greater amount of
revenue than the system of a sliding scale. The Noble Earl
had stated what were the opinions of the people on the subject ;
but he (Lord Monteagle) differed with him on that subject.
He thought the consumers generally won d prefer a fixed duty,
with a considerable revenue, than a duty imposed solely on the
ground of protection.—(Hear.) But it was said that a fixed
duty could not be maintained in time of exigency. He re-
quested their Lordships' attention for a few minutes to this part
of the question. He would assume an Bs. duty—a time of exi-
gency and high prices—and a clamour on the part of the people
for the repeal of the duty. What, in that case, was to be done ?
He (Lord Monteagle) would say, "Adhere to the duty," and
for this reason, that the consumer would not derive any benefit
if the duty were removed.—.(Cheers.) He would state in illus-
tration, that during the late distress in the neighbourhood of
Glasgow there was a quantity of corn in bond in Glasgow,
and could any person suppose that if the duty on corn
were removed, it would sell for 20s. less. Was it not clear that
the repeal of the duty would only put so much money into the
pocket of the holder of corn, and be of no benefit whatever to the
consumer?—( Hear, hear.) Precisely the same thing would
occur if the holder of corn was a Dantzic merchant. Now
that were the case, he should say that they ought to adhere to
the duty. He would now advert to the effect of the sliding
scale on the currency of the country, and if the proposition they
sought to establish were carried, they would he liable to pe-
riodical derangements in the currency, which would affect the
landed interest more than any other. —( Hear, hear.) The
first authority he would refer to on thi, subject was that of the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
' mont, a high authority, because ne would say there were few public
men, and he spoke under correction he was aware, who could
claim higher honour than the Right Hon. Gentleman for
bringing forward, and afterwards defending the restoration of
the currency. He made that declaration, however unpo-
pillar, because he believed it to be just. But in the year 1827
the Government of the day were pressed by the state of agri-
cultural distress, and on that occasion an attempt was made to
obtain a higher protection for agriculture. On that occasion
Sir R. Peel said that the return to the system of 1815 would be
' most likely to disturb the currency, that speculations would be
indulged in which should be paid for in gold, and that it was a
fallacy to suppose that, because corn was cheap is Dantzic, it
would not be increased by the demand for gold. That doctrine
was now reprobated. The case alluded to by the Right Hon.
Gentleman now at the head of her Majesty's Government was
the effect of a certain opening of the ports fot three months,
the demand for foreign corn during those three months, and the
necessity of paying for it in gold. He (Lord Monteagle) would
show them what happened on the occasion referred to. He had
moved for certain returns respecting the fluctuations of bullion
in the Bank of England since the passing of the last Charter
Act. He did not say that the want of bullion arose from the
state of the Corn-laws---(the returns were only from the year
1834)—but it was a most curious fact that, with the excep-
tion of those years in which from the effects of ,the failures in
America, and of joint-stock bank speculations, great disturb-
ance in the corn trade was contemporaneous with disturbance
in the circuiation. In the year 1838 there was an introdus -
tion of wheat and wheat flour to the amount of 1,300,000
quarters. At that period the highest amount of bullion in
the Bank of England was 10,126,0001., and the lowest, at
moat, was 9,350,0001. The next year the quantity of corn
imported was 2.862,000 quarters. Then what became of the
circulation ? The highest amount of gold that year in the
Bank was 9,356,0001., but the lowest was 2,500,000/., corre-
sponding in amount to the whole quantity of corn imported.
If he were to go through, merely as a matter of curiosity, the
annals of those two years, 1838 and 1839, they would find that.
they commenced at a rate of introduction of 5,200 quarters
per month—(the maximum amount in September, 1838, being
5,620 quarters.) They began with an amount of ten millions
of bullion, and at the close of that period they had only two
millions to meet all the expenditure of the country—to pay. the
army, navy, &c., &c. The non-coincidence of the American
distress, and the demand for foreign corn, was one of those
circumstances for which every British statesman, and merchant,
and lover of his country, ought to make matter of daily and
hourly congratulation. Had it occurred a few years previous
to the time at which it had happened. and contemporane-
ously with the time that that state of the bullion
to which he had adverted was prodeced by the fluctuating
Corn-law, what might not have been the consequence ?
They were only saved from the result ef such a concurrence by
a miracle. As some one had said, France had come in to the
support of the Bank of England, and had given them a glorious
proof of their independence of foreign countries.---( Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) The Bank of England would have
been obliged to stop payment. The consequence of such a cir-
cumstance, not merely speaking of national distress, would have
been irreparable. It was said they were not like Indiana or
Ohio, but if so, they had not to thank themselves for it. It
was in spite of their bad legislation that they were not the first
commercial country in the world, held up to tie scorn of all
men, for haling themselves produced that distressing calamity.
Imadverting to these matters, he only touched upon the boun-
dary--of the circle. He would take the•liberty of calling their
Loidships' attention to one more passage. The document he
was about to read might be objected to. It bore tha name of
Mr. Samuel Lloyd and Mr. Senior. It was prepared long be-
fore the late Government scheme was thought of. He knew
of hie own knowledge, Rea those persons were not aware of
themeasureproposed by the late Government whenthey drew up
.thisdoeument. They stated, adverting to the. improvement in the
sliding'sCale, that, like the present law, it would, keep corn at
an artificial price ; thit it must prevent any steadiness in the