have been imported. and yet we have no trade. Trade is barter-trade is the exchange of one commodity for another. When our demand for corn is desultory, the demand for our manufactures cannot be permanent. If there were a free trade in corn, foreign countries would not pass laws intended to exclude our manufactures; they would not do as they now did they would not pass retaliatory tariffs to protect their own domestic manufactures. It is not the agriculturists of this country, it is not the independent yeoman, it is not the farmer who expends his capital upon his land, it is not the man who dreads competition from foreign markets, but it is those in possession of the secrets of our mechanism-it is those who emulate us in industry and begin to rival us in skill, that your corn laws afford protection. It will hardly be contended, that the countries from which during the last four years we have drawn our supplies of corn, have taken the manufactures of this country in return in anything like a commensurate quantity. It appears, from a return laid upon the table of the house, that the number of English vessels which entered the Baltic in ballast in the year 1839 was 1100not laden with your manufactures, but wholly in ballast. Look at the returns also before the house of the number of vessels which entered the port of Dantzic in 1838, distinguishing those which were laden and those in ballast. In 1838 there were 413 English vessels entering the port of Dantzic in ballast; and in the same year 417 vessels left the port of Dantzic laden with corn. This proves undeniably that when you now take corn from foreign countries your own manufactures are not taken in return. What effect has this system upon your currencyupon that metallic currency which the right honourable gentleman had established, and over which he ought to watch with peculiar care? It seems to me to be impossible to establish a metallic currency, and to continue a system of laws such as those which exist. Corn must be paid for in bullion; the exchange is against us; the circulation is checked, and the inevitable result is a panic. I beg to call the attention of the house to the language of Mr. Huskisson in 1821, with reference to this view of the subject. In the famous report of 1821, the words which I shall read were applied by him to the existing system of corn laws-that of 1815. The words of Mr. Huskisson are as applicable to the existing system of the right honourable baronet as if they were yesterday specifically composed to meet it. These are the words of Mr. Huskisson:-"The inconvenient operation of the present corn laws, which appears to be less the consequence of the foreign corn brought into the country on the average of years than the manner in which the grain is introduced, is not confined to great fluctuation in price, and consequent embarrassment both to the grower and consumer, for the occasional prohibition has also a direct tendency to contract the extent of our commercial dealings with other states, and to excite in the rulers of those states a spirit of permanent exclusion against the manufactures of this country. In this conflict, the exclusion is injurious to both. The two parties, however, are not upon an equal footing. On our part, the prohibition must yield to the wants of the people; on the other side, there

is no such overruling necessity, and inasmuch as the reciprocity of demand is the foundation of all means of payment, a large and sudaca influx of corn might, under these circumstances, create a temporary derangement in the course of exchange, the effect of which, after the resumption of cash payments, might lead to a drain of specie from the bank, the contraction of the circulation, a panic among the public banks. and a public dearth, as experienced in former years of scarcity."

That was written by Mr. Huskisson in 1821, two years after the bill was passed, which is rendered memorable by the association with it of the name of the right honourable baronet at the head of her majesty's government. I am not one of those who are disposed to quarrel with the measure of the right honourable baronet. I think that it evinced the possession of great moral courage in the right honourable baronet to effect and carry out such a measure. But it is said, do not make such a change in the relation of the agriculturist of this country as the alteration of the corn law would effect; do not rush upon a step which will occasion such a revolution in the position of the property of the agricultural interests of England. But, by the measure of 1819, the right honourable baronet changed every contract in the kingdom-he altered the relation of landlord and tenant, the relation of debtor and creditor, and of every class in the country; he instituted a new order of things, to the results of which, the celebrated and learned author of" Corn and Currency" has so well alluded. But the right honourable baronet was not then a minister of the crown; his solicitude for the interests of his country were unbiassed by any anxiety for the maintenance of his party. I wish he could now act with the same moral intrepidity, and heedless of all intimations given to him in another place, and would make the amendment which the country demands, in a spirit worthy of an Englishman, and would afford relief to the operatives of the country more effectual than any to be found in an acknowledgment, however eloquent, of their wretchedness, or in any unprofitable commiseration. It is said that the corn laws are not connected with

the distress of the country- the existence of any distress is denied.The existence of it has been proved, and now I come to this part of the case. For my own part, when I find the corn laws affect the trade of this country-when I find the corn laws affect the manufactures of this country-the employment of the people—I find in them an adequate cause of that public distress which exists, and an adequate cause of that legitimate effect is, I think, fairly ascertained. If something effectual is not done in parliament-in a parliament in which the landed interests are said to have such an influence-I am afraid that the people of this country will be disposed to turn with resentful importunity from the mere expression of our sympathy, and will adopt a more stringent modu of proceeding; and as they have been led to believe that the poor law was not enacted from any profound solicitude for the poor, so they will think that the corn laws are retained from an exclusive regard to the feelings and interests of the rich. And I must say that it would be hard indeed for this house to turn from the supplications for relief; it

would be hard if, while we by our legislation affect the employment of the people, and induce the operatives of this country to ask for an asylum in those domiciles of woe which are provided for them, we refuse to afford them the means of supporting themselves in a manner becoming their ancient character and position. If charity is to be withheld, let not work, at all events, be refused. The people of England do not ask for charity, they do not go on their knees to ask any eleemosynarv contributions; they ask for bread to produce work; for work to produce bread; they ask not for cheap bread, indeed, but for more—they ask for the means of earning bread, whether it be cheap or costly. They call on us to strike off those fetters which cramp the industry of the country, and in doing so they wish us to consult, not merely their interest, but our own. I entirely agree in the sentiments which I have heard expressed by an honourable and learned member to-night, that the agricultural and commercial interests of the country are not distinct. So far from their being distinct-so far from their being at variance and conflicting with each other, they are the same. Trade depends upon agriculture, agriculture depends upon trade. I am sure my honourable friend the member for Stockport, when he looks upon the splendid picture which the rural scenery of England presents, would draw from its contemplation one of the highest pleasures. I am sure the right honourable gentleman the member for Kent, a native English gentleman, must see in the very smoke with which our cities are enveloped from their furnaces, intimations of the means by which the agricultural interest is advanced, and the greatness of the country is achieved No, Sir, the commercial and agricultural interests of England are not distinct. But if they were-if it was necessary to make a distinction between them-if in giving sustainment to both it is necessary to make a sacrifice of either, I should be disposed to say that the maintenance of the commerce of England ought, in the mind of every Englishman deserving the name, to be the object of paramount consideration. It is not, after all, by agriculture that this country is so distinguished; for what is this but a speck upon the scene? It is not to agriculture-it is not to the extent or fertility of our soil-it is not to any rare skill in calling forth the products of the earth. No; it is the spirit of commer cial enterprise by which Englishmen are distinguished from any other nation on the face of the earth. It is the indomitable perseverance in the glorious pursuit of our boundless traffic, by which every difficulty has been overcome, and every obstacle surmounted. It is to the unwearied energies of the country, to its amazing industry, to its untiring zeal, to the marvellous skill with which it has filled the earth with the products of its labour-it is this commerce which has extended its influence to the boundaries of the earth-it is to these glorious causes that England is indebted for its prominence among the nations of the earth. Against our trade it was that our mighty adversary directed his principal attempts. He, however, failed. Let us have a care .est we effect by our policy what Napoleon was unable to accomplis; let us have a care lest by an obstinate adherence to a system which so many

enlightened men, men not more enlightened than irepartial, have condemned as the source of so much mischief; which has already produced so much calamity, and threatens us with, perhaps, still greater injury ; which contracts our commerce, which exposes our monetary system to perpetual disturbance, which reduces our operatives to a state of the most unhappy destitution; let us, too, have a care lest, by a pernicious adherence to that fatal system, we do not entail evils upon our country for which your talents, if you were the brightest, your wisdom if you were the wisest, and your virtues if you were the most high-minded minister to whom the care of England was ever intrusted, would be unable to find a cure.

INCOME TAX.

SPEECH ON THE INCOME TAX, APRIL 8, 1812.

Ir for the sustainment of the honour and the interests of England an income tax were required, I make no doubt that the people of this country would at once submit to it, and follow with promptitude, the example which our gracious Sovereign has spontaneously and magnanimously given; but of this generous example, the minister should be slow to take advantage, and should avoid with peculiar care, any exaggerated description of the perils or of the embarrassments of the country, in order to produce an acquiesence in a tax of all others the most convenient to the minister, but the most harassing and vexatious to the people. Does the condition of England, does the state of her finances, do existing difficulties, do impending perils, make the imposition of a tax so odious, matter of inevitable need? That question will be put ere many months shall have passed, by that portion of the community in which political power is deposited, and upon the answer to that question, the stability of the government will depend, when the merits of the minister shall be tried by some better test than the acclamations of heated partisans, and shall be determined by the results to which his legislation will conduct

us.

The right honourable baronet has little to apprehend, during the passage of his bill through the parliament. He told us, that he was ready to take the course which he had adopted in 1835. But I cannot help thinking that his magnanimity is misplaced; his public virtue will not be put to a trial so severe. Although it may seem paradoxical to say so, his difficulties will be the result of his success, and his will be one of those victories, which it requires less ability to win than to follow up. When the income-tax shall have been in actual operation—when a theory in the parliament shall have become a burden upon the people when schedule D shall have been made fearfully intelligible--when this tax shall have been charged, to use a phrase familiar in debates on the Irish Registration Bill, upon the "beneficial interest” which a man has in all his earnings, and no allowance shall have been made as against this impost, for food, for fire, for raiment, for the roof over an English tradesman's head-when the privacy of so many Englishmen shall have been invaded by the inquisitors, who are to be attached to your new fiscal tribunal—when a scrutiny shall have been instituted into the affairs of every man, whom your commissioners, original, additional, or special, shall conjecture to have gained £150 in a single year-when all the pain and all the humiliation incidental to this tax shall have been felt, then, I feel persuaded that the people of this country will inquire wheiher this tax would not have been avoided, or whether the right honourable baronet did not take advantage of a majority, hot from the struggle of recent election, to inflict a tax, for which neither the present condition, nor the future prospects of England, afforded a justification. I have little doubt, that the people of England will think that the right nongurable baronet was mistaken in his view of the public embarrass