evidence before you, of the futility-the utter and most scandalous futility of your differential duty for the accomplishment of any one purpose by which the interest of humanity, as distinct from those of monopoly, can be promoted-instead of calling upon England, to put forth her might, and invoking her to employ the only efficient means by which this horrible traffic in our fellow-creatures can be put down, expatiate upon the blessings of monopoly; descant upon 63s., and 36s., and 24s., and propound resolutions for the sustainment of that fiscal anomaly, by which (and you know it,) to the atrocities of the slave-trade not the slightest obstacle is presented, while to our revenues the deepest detriment is done. The embarrassments with which every minister of this country, whether he be Whig or Tory, will have to contend for many a day, will be augmented, by which a deprivation of one of the commonest commodities of life will be inflicted upon the lower classes, by which industry will be paralysed, the employment of our suffering and pining operatives will be abridged, our commercial relations with one of our best allies will be endangered, and we shall run the risk of closing, perhaps for ever, a field of almost boundless enterprise upon the commercial genius of the English people.

CORN LAWS.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 9, 1842.

I CERTAINLY am surprised that the right honourable gentleman who has just sat down, and who is so remarkable for perspicuity, should have mistaken the observation of the noble lord (Viscount Howick,) who is so remarkable for his perspicuity. The right honourable baronet has misconceived what the noble lord advanced, and he seems to me to have omitted that part of the speech which is most deserving of attention. Among the observations of the noble lord, I was struck with one which appeared to me particularly deserving of attention. The noble lord designated the measure of the right honourable baronet as the precursor of ulterior measures. The noble lord stated it was obvious that the right honourable baronet cannot stop here, and that either he or some other minister must ultimately abandon this protection. To that observation no remark has been made by the right honourable gentleman. Whether he agrees in that remark, or did not agree, it is not for me to determine. I think that the observation of the noble lord deserves the most serious consideration. The right honourable baronet is about to tamper with the law which regulates the price of provisions. It has been well said by Edmund Burke, in his excellent thoughts on scarcity, "that to tamper with the laws regulating the price of provisions, is at all times dangerous," but when you do tamper with these laws-when you do more-when you do yield to public opinion, you ought, at least, to see that you are acting satisfactorily to some great party. You are about to take the first step, and that an important step, in the course of innovation. You are about to take a step which does not satisfy all parties, even on your own side. The Duke of Buckingham, at least, feels a strong objection to it. When that change is proposed, he, who was not in the cabinet of 1839, ceased to be in the cabinet of 1842. Might he venture to say, "Honi soit qui mal y pense ?" When you are about to make a change which is thought material by your own supporters, it is a matter of much regret and of some surprise, that you do not at once that which you or some one else must do at last. You still adhere to the vicious principle of the present system, of which perpetual uncertainty is the conspicuous essence. You still adhere to the sliding-scale. You adhere to the principle that affords incentives, and that affords opportunities for fraudulent combinations. You still adhere to the principle

which substitutes the spirit of rash adventure for the spirit of legitimate commercial speculation. You apply the principle of a sliding-scale to corn alone-you apply it to no other article of human food. Colonial coffee and colonial sugar are protected by fixed duties. It is said that the sugar duties are about to undergo a change. It is rumoured that the apprehensions which were so lately entertained as to the indirect sanction you would give to the slave-trade begins to subside. Do you mean to apply the principle of the sliding-scale to coffee and to sugar? If you did so, if you passed a law declaring that the duty upon Brazilian sugar and upon Havannah sugar shall depend upon the average price of East India and of West India sugar, I will ask the right honourable gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whose peculiar care this would be, whether such a law would not inflict a great practical injury on the growers of coffee and the growers of sugar in the Brazils? I do not feel surprised that the agriculturists of this country do not adopt the opinions-the extreme opinions as they are considered by many-of Mr. Adam Smith, and Mr. Huskisson in his latter days, that the very measures intended for the protection of the agricultural interests are in fact deleterious to them; but it does appear to me strange that the advice of so decided a friend of protection as Mr. M'Culloch should not have more weight with the agriculturists. Mr. M'Culloch says that a fluctuating scale of duty adds an artificial variation to the inevitable natural variations of the seasons, and inflicts as much injury upon the farmers as upon the traders. Is this a sound principle? Let us examine how the sliding-scale works now, to see how it will work under the proposed changes. The slidingscale in one single year, in the year 1835, shifted thirty-five timesit underwent thirty-five different changes. On the 19th of July, in 1838, the duty was 20s. 8d.; on the 13th of September, the duty was 18.; in the week ending October 11th, it was again 20s. 8d.; and, before the end of December, it again descended to ls. In the year 1840, the lowest duty was 2s. 8d.; it remained so for one week, and in five weeks afterwards it was 20s. 8d. In the year 1840, on the 17th September, it was only ls.; in the next week, it was 2s. 8d.; it rose to 16s. 8d. the next week; to 20s. 8d.; and on the 14th October it reached 22s. 8d. It appears to me that this system, or anything like this system, must produce injury to the agriculturists, and that the farmers suffer equally with other classes, from that which they believe to be their safeguard. But, says the right honourable baronet, "the new plan which I propose, and the machinery which I introduce, will obviate many of the objections of the present law. I introduce rests,

which will baffle the fraudulent working of the averages." It is true that you lower the duty, but you leave a duty ranging between 20s. and 1s. You therefore leave ample opportunity for working the averages— you leave every chance for having a glut of corn at a time when it can be contemplated this long duty will arrive. It has been urged, and I admit the force of the objection, that in times of scarcity it will be very difficult to maintain a fixed duty. I will meet that objection, and I will answer it by a reference to Mr. M'Culloch. He says that if the ports are constantly open, if there is a regular trade in corn at a fixed duty, the supply would be perpetual; and that if there be a fixed duty we shall take away the chance of a great scarcity. I admit the force of the objection; but where there is a choice of evils-where we have to make our election between difficulties, I would confide in a fixed duty to be brought under the consideration of parliament, rather than surrender the averages to the jobbers of Mark-lane. Whatever may be the opinions as to a fixed duty or the effect upon the commercial and manufacturing interests of this country, there is no doubt during the last four years millions of quarters of corn 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 1100-not 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 undeni

ably that when you now take corn from foreign countries your own manufactures are not taken in return. What effect has this system

upon your currency-upon 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 occa sional 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 sudden 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 evidenced 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