Lord John Russell said, that he did not intend, after what he stated the other evening, to offer any opinion at present upon the plan which had just been submitted to the House; but in order that they might come to the discussion of the question with as much information as possible-he did not mean of a general or statistical nature, but as regarded the plan itself-it appeared to him advisable, if not absolutely necessary, that the House should be put in possession of the list of towns from which it was proposed to take the averages in future; because it would make a great deal of difference whether those towns were small or large. He, therefore, hoped that the right honourable Baronet would be prepared to lay upon the Table tomorrow a list of the towns, or the greater portion of the towns, which he intended to introduce into his plan.

Sir Robert Peel replied, that he should, of course, endeavour to supply the list referred to by the noble Lord, and would probably lay it on the Table on Friday. He begged to assure the House that the list would be made out upon the principle of taking the most important towns. The returns at present included many small towns, particularly in Wales. The Government thought it, therefore, advisable to make a revision of those returns, solely with the view of taking as a test those towns which contained the principal corn markets. The selection, he could assure the House, should not be made with a view of influencing the averages in the slightest degree. Any indirect operation upon the averages he totally disclaimed.

Mr. Cobden said, it was not his intention to enter into any argu

ments upon the merits of this important question at present, but he should not be doing justice to himself or his constituents if he did not declare that he felt no surprise at the proposal which had been submitted to the House by Her Majesty's Government, inasmuch as he had not expected that they would have proposed a measure beneficial to the country. Looking to the constitution of the present Government, he repeated that he was not surprised at their proposal, for he did not expect to get

grapes from thorns or figs from thistles." The present proposal of her Majesty's Government he ventured to denounce as an insult to the sufferings of a people whose patience had been extolled by the right honourable Baronet, but whose patience deserved a very different treatment from that which it was now proposed by the landed aristocracy and the Cabinet, which was their instrument, to confer upon them. This policy towards the people of England he very much feared would end at no very remote period in the utter destruction of every interest in the country.

The House then adjourned.

On the following day, Lord John Russell gave notice that on the ensuing Monday he should move a resolution condemnatory of the principle of a sliding-scale, which he subsequently announced in these terms: "That this House considering the evils which have been caused by the present Cornlaws, and especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or slidingscale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of Her Majesty's Government, which is founded on the same principle, and is likely to be attended by the same results."

Mr. Villiers followed Lord John

Russell's notice by announcing, that on going into Committee he should take the sense of the House on the policy of imposing any duty whatever on foreign corn or food imported into this country.

A third notice was given by Mr. Christopher, one of the Members for Lincolnshire, and a great supporter of the agricultural interest, that he should move in Committee a scale of wheat duties, instead of Sir Robert Peel's, imposing a maximum duty of 25s. when the price is 50s., and a minimum duty of 1s. when the price is 73s.; the duty falling by 1s. as the price rises by 1s., except that at the rise of price from 59s. to 60s., the duty falls by 2s.

The debate commenced on the 14th, when Sir Robert Peel moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, in order to a Committee of the whole House on the Corn-laws.

Lord John Russell then rose to bring forward his amendment; the cry, he observed, was no longer "No surrender;" but the question was now as to the terms of the capitulation. If, however, the House was prepared to condemn the Corn-laws as no longer fit to remain on the Statute-book, it was of importance that the change should be made on sound principles, and in such a manner that the new arrangement should not be disturbed for some time to come. To disturb the existing state of things but to settle nothing, to concede but not to conciliate, would be the most imprudent course for a Government or for Parliament to adopt. He then stated the general principles upon which he differed with the Government proposal: "I suppose it will be agreed, that with respect to corn as with respect to every thing else, the

general principle is one of not legislating at all on the subject. The general principle as to all commodities is, that the producer or the seller endeavours to produce or to bring to market that article, and in that shape, which will be most likely to find a ready and immediate purchaser. The general principle with regard to the purchaser, I apprehend, in like manner is, that he will go by preference where he expects to get the goods he wants the best in quality and the cheapest in price. Therefore, speaking generally, legislation has no natural place in those matters. The community themselves are far better judges on such subjects than the wisest senate that ever deliberated upon them."

This principle was well understood in the present day, but was most exceedingly violated in practice.

There were, no doubt, two exceptions or limitations to its application in the present case: if the landed interest suffered peculiar burthens, they might claim protection against foreign competition to that extent; and Adam Smith had said, that when the importation of foreign goods has been for some time interrupted, and the protected employment has been so for extended as to engage a great number of hands, humanity may require that freedom of trade should only be restored by slow gradations, and with good deal of reserve and circumspection. In the proposel plan, however, Government acted upon the principle (a principle sanctioned by Mr. Malthus, it is true), that you ought never to make yourself dependent on foreign countries for your food. "But though such a proposition might be good and true in some remote sequestered state, though it

But

might apply with truth to that community which by some is said to exist in Mexico, which is cut off from and without communication with the rest of mankind—I cannot conceive how it can be applicable to a great commercial country like this. Supposing it possible, in what manner could you establish such an independence? ReRemember, that not only corn, but other articles are necessary. as to corn only, let us not forget, as the right honourable gentleman stated the other night, that for four years the average annual importation of corn to this country from abroad was 2,300,000 quarters. Thus, 2,000,000 people must during that period have depended for food upon foreign countries. As regards other commodities, the employment of the people and the increase of manufactures depends as much on the supply of the raw material, as the food of those 2,000,000 depends on the supply of corn from abroad. Suppose the supply of cotton from America were suddenly stopped, or the supply of wool, or of silks: I do not think I should exaggerate, if I said that not less than 7,000,000 persons would be deprived of employment and subsistence. Here, then, for four or five years, under a law which goes upon the principle of making the country independent of any other for its supply of food, 7,000,000 of your people were dependent upon foreign produce. For that period, 7,000,000 of the people of this country, which has gone on the principle of being independent of a foreign supply, were compelled, in despite of and in defiance of that principle, to have recourse to foreign aid."

But in respect of food itself, the very means taken to make this

country independent of foreign nations had failed. "The consequence, as pointed out by the report of the Committee of 1821, said to be written by Mr. Huskisson, is, that while you raise the price of food in this country beyond the price of Continental countries, you do for a time give a stimulus to agriculture; a stimulus, however, which in favourable seasons produces a glut which it becomes impossible to remedy. In that way was it that the distress of those years referred to by the right honourable Baronet occurred. Those were the years in which we find by the King's Speeches, by the appointment of Committees, and by speeches made in this House, that complaints were frequently made of agricultural distress; complaints which, I must say, it was natural to expect would have been made, because there was no outlet or vent for the surplus agricultural produce of those years. Then, what follows? what follows? Why, necessarily, a check to production, until that production is made suitable to average years. Again, when an unfavourable season arrives, you find you have not the quantity of food necessary for the supply of your wants, and you are obliged to make a large importation, so that your object is entirely defeated. The only ground I can conceive for entertaining such an object, would be the case of a war with a foreign country; and yet I cannot imagine a war by which we should be placed in a position of greater danger than that which we occupied when this country was struggling against Napoleon, and when 2,000,000 quarters of corn were imported in a single year."

Sir Robert Peel had said that

those countries whence we import corn are nearly in the same latitude as our own; that their seasons resemble ours, and that there fore they would suffer a scarcity when we do. The argument only showed how necessary it was not to confine ourselves for a supply to the north of Europe alone, but to take assistance also from the Black Sea and America: "Stretch the arms of your commerce, as all your other powers are stretched, over the whole world." But the proposal before the House was opposed to that extension. "The first objection I take to a slidingscale is, that a high, I would say a prohibitory, duty always forms part of it. I could understand a scale not exceeding 10s. or 12s., and going down to 4s., to 3s., or to ls.; but I find that whenever gentlemen speak of a sliding-scale, it is of such a nature as to contain a prohibitory duty. The first duty, when the price is at 50s. and under 51s., is 20s. ; and I shall now proceed to show that that is a prohibitory duty. I have looked over the papers containing the latest information. From the information obtained by Mr. Meek, who was sent to the North of Europe expressly to collect information on the subject, it appears that the original price of Dantzic wheat, when brought from the interior of the country, is 35s. ; that the charges, which seem to satisfy that gentleman's mind amount in all to 10s. 6d.; thus making the price at which it could be sold in England in ordinary years, 45s. 6d. If you add to that the proposed duty of 208., you make the entire price of Dantzic wheat 65s. 6d., when the price at home is 50s. ; showing, of course, that 20s. amounts to a prohibitory duty.

In the same way at Odessa, as stated in the Consul's returns, the price would be 26s.; adding to which 10s. for freight, and some further charges, which cannot be taken at less than 5s., as on former occasions, and adding then the proposed duty of 20s., you would have the price up to 61s., without counting the profit of the merchant who had to deal with this corn; and therefore, although you may say that you have reduced the duty to 20s., to 19s., and to 18s., yet in all three instances it can be shown that the duty is prohibitory; and that when the price is at 55s. or 56s. the price at which the right honourable gentleman said it would please him to see it, nobody can tell why-there would then be a prohibitory duty upon foreign corn."

Indeed, Sir Robert Peel was right when he said, that a duty of 20s. was quite sufficient, and that it would exclude foreign corn as effectually as a duty of 45s. At what time, he (Lord John Russell) asked, would the duty cease to be prohibitory? "Supposing you admit foreign corn at 62s., and that that price would enable the merchant to pay a duty of 11s.; at 65s. he could sell it to greater advantage by getting 3s. additional. Not content with that, you tell him that when the price is at 65s., and that a supply is required, you will admit his foreign corn at 8s. instead of 11s. What has been the consequence during the last year of that system of duties? It has been well stated in two new pamphlets written on this subject-one by Mr. Hubbard, the other by Mr. Greg: in one of these it is shown, that on the 5th July last, Dantzic wheat in bond was 48s. a quarter; and that if let out it might have