taxation, or of being relieved of that tax so specially odious which you have now to bear, than by first abolishing the tax upon food. If food has been rendered high before by means of the Corn Laws, it will be again. But can the condition of the people be improved by such means? And if the condition of the people is not improved how can they consume other articles that are taxed for the increase of the Revenue? And if the deficit of the Revenue is augmented will you not expect additional taxation rather than to be relieved of any that professes to be only temporary? Satisfy yourselves, therefore, whether you have not an interest in repealing Laws that make food artificially scarce, besides doing mischief to trade and manufacture.

I will not weary you further. I have ventured to speak at such length because I am sure that you came here not to be amused or excited by declamation, but to join in the deliberate consideration of a most serious matter with all the gravity that belongs to it.

I have now only to add that on you and on your manifestation of opinion on this question depends our influence in Parliament. Within this week you have been represented in both Houses as caring nothing, as utterly indifferent about a matter vital to your interests. And this will be repeated if you allow it. The whole case is before you. You have had a full trial of the system, and with you rests its fate. You are told that the Corn Laws were altered last year, and must remain as they are for an experiment to be made. The experiment has been made. The principle of

the Corn Laws has been proved to be faulty and iniquitous, and its practical results you are suffering from at this hour. If you have a doubt of the policy of demanding Repeal now, when do you think that you would have a better chance of obtaining it? And what experiment do you think would ever satisfy our opponents? If prices do not rise, as they expect, do you think that they will repeal the Laws that they believe prevent them from falling lower than they are? And if prices rise, do you think that they will sacrifice that which gives them such an advantage? But if you will have no better chance in the future than you have at present, act now. Act now upon your knowledge of all the evil, of all the misery and ruin that the Corn Laws are calculated to produce-that they have produced; and, as you would pray to be rid of a plague or pestilence scattering death and destruction throughout the country, call in a tone there shall be no misunderstanding for their immediate and total repeal.

XIV.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25, 1843.

On April 25, 1843, Mr. Ricardo moved, 'That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of this House that it is not expedient that any contemplated remission of import duties be postponed, with the view of making such remission a basis of commercial negotiations with foreign countries.' Mr. Villiers, Mr. Cobden, Lord Howick, and Lord Russell supported the Motion, and Sir R. Peel and Mr. Gladstone spoke against it. It was negatived by a majority of 74 votes.

I RISE to meet the only two objections that can be said to have been fairly opposed to the proposition of my Hon. Friend. One of these was made by the Hon. Baronet who has just sat down,1 and the other by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. I notice them because I know that they pass current in some quarters, and that there are persons influenced by them.

The Hon. Member for Liverpool considers that the system of freedom proposed by my Hon. Friend will lead to further restrictions by other nations, because, he says, the relaxation of our system of late has already been met by hostile tariffs in six different States. I do not consider this objection to be in point; but, on the contrary, a confirmation of the view taken on this side of the House, that the example of this country greatly influences the policy of other States. For though we have talked much of the re1 Sir H. Douglas.

laxation of our system, the fact is that we have steadily and avowedly adhered to the principle of it, which is Protection. And this is what foreign States look to. They observe that though we shift the duties a little, we boast with as much firmness as before of sticking to the principle of Protection; and observing our example they follow it and raise their tariffs to secure Protection for themselves.

If we had honestly denounced the system and declared it to be proved wrong by experience, and if we had reduced our duties whilst other States still persevered in the same system, the remark might have been just; but as it is foreign States are imitating this country.

The objection urged by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury is that if we regard only our imports the precious metals will leave this country and we shall experience great derangement of the Currency: as we did in 1839 upon the occasion of a great import of grain. And he expects that this can only be prevented by a Reciprocal Treaty by which the nation from which we import stipulates to receive our manufactures.

Now, let me inform the Hon. Member, for his consolation, that though our relations with the graingrowing States remain as they were in 1839, that though we have imported grain for four or five years successively, we have nevertheless ceased to export bullion; and that the trade with those countries having become more regular, payment has been made in manufactures: which shows that it is under the

present system, when the trade is not suffered to be regular, that upon a sudden demand we are obliged to send out bullion; but that when the trade continues the exchange with manufactures is regular. In fact, the grain that we have imported during the last four years has been paid for in this way.

But there are instances in which the tariffs of other countries are almost prohibitory as regards our manufactures ; and yet we contrive to take their goods without sending bullion. Russia is an instance. The value of the exports of that country to England is about 5,000,000l.; and we take the pitch, flax, tallow, and hides of Russia without paying for them directly in goods. There are other instances that I could name, and enough to show the Hon. Gentleman that no direct trade is carried on, and that direct interchange of goods between this and any other particular country need not occur. The merchants discover the liabilities existing between different countries, and may be safely relied upon to adjust the account resulting from trade between them.

So much for the objections urged against my Hon. Friend's Motion, which are without foundation. Whatever else has been said against it is either a misrepresentation of its objects or something uttered with a view to confuse it.

I will now just recall the attention of the House to the simple point that is raised in question by the proposition, which really is no other than the purpose of our trade, and the principle that ought to guide any regulation of it.