CANADA AND CORN.
lit the "City" department of a journal rather celebrated, during the last.seven or eight years, for most varieties of newspaper dis- honesty, the writer, thinking perhaps to curry favour with the more exalted powers of the journal by attacking the Spectator in the fashion of their example, has fallen into a ludicrous exposure of his own incapacity. A paragraph in our last Postscript explained, so far as they are known the facts respecting the changes which have been made, and probably will be made, in the laws regulating the corn-trade between Canada and Great Britain. Referring the reader to that explanation, we introduce the following barefaced allusion to it, from the Morning Chronicle of Tuesday- " By the Globe of this evening, we perceive that a weekly paper, called the Spectator, of Tory principles—if it have any principles at all—has been attempting to make it appear that the proceedings of the Canadian Par- liament, in reference to the import-duty of 3s. per quarter on American wheat, and the consequent further reduction of the Imperial duties on Canadian wheat, were all founded on an erroneous understanding of the facts. [The Spectator attempted nothing of the sort : we believe that the leading members of the C,anadian Parliament were better informed on the subject than we are in Ragland.] The Spectator asserts that Lord Stanley merely alluded to the duties now levied on Canadian wheat—[The Spectator stated the very reverse] —that he gave no grounds for expecting any further reduction of those duties— [The reverse was stated]—and that all his promises have been fulfilled by the new Corn-Importation Act of 1842. [The reverse was stated.] The Spectator must consider the Canadian legislators a set of very egregious ninnies ; and if his views of the question were correct, they would certainly be nothing else."
The impudent blockhead that penned this mendacious exordium follows it up with an explanation of the facts similar to our own, only that he speaks of the probable future proceedings in terms more positive than the known facts warrant. This is a flagrant instance of that shameless falsehood which pervades every part of the leading Whig journal when it has a party purpose to serve. The malignancy of the writer was perhaps exasperated by his having been among the blunderer; while he pretended, with much ostenta- tion, to some sort of priority in discussing the subject; and also perhaps by the fact that the Globe on Monday had been so uncivil to his laborious efforts at elucidation as to pass them over for the explanation of the Spectator. Two days after, this extraordinary public instructer forestalled our rebuff by knocking down his own case against us, at the same time floundering into new blunders. Be seems incapable of re- membering what he reads or what he himself has written, or he would never have indited the foregoing passage after having read the subjoined extract from the Spectator; or, having written it he would not, two days afterwards, with stolid simplicity, have
brought forward the disproof in the words of the misquoted original. introduced, however, with new perversions-
" After asserting that there is no law [We said " no machinery ".] at present by which American-grown wheat, transhipped from Canada, can be refused admission into British ports as Canadian produce, and that it is necessary, en that account, to tax American wheat before it is mixed with the w heat of Canada, otherwise American wheat would be admitted without any protective duty, the Spectator says- ' The confusion has originated, probably, in the fact that Lord Stanley, in tbe despatch, which is dated the 20 of March. speaks of a measure as belonging to I he ftitum which sow belongs to the past—the new Corn-Importation Act. lie points out to the Canadians the merits of that bill. (now the existing law,) but apologizes for its not going briber with the reduction of duties in their favour, for the reasons already sped. fled. lu March last, Lord Stanley described as about to be done in future that ahich has been done; but people think that that still remains to be done; and so they con. found it with what really is still a matter of futurity—the unknown further reduction, ahich. as Lord Stanley promised the Canadians, is to follow their adtpt ion of his hint Ile did not ask them to impose a duty on American wheat as a gratuitous favour to this country, but to transfer to their frontier the duty which they wished taken off in their favour at OUT frontier : they have done so, and it follows that an equitalent reduction is to be made in the duty at our Ii, nfier. Such is the plain interpretation of Lose Stanley's words ; and it is entirely in the spirit of Sir Robert Peels prt.mite, that Canada should be treated as an integral part of the empire—an English county,' " American wheat, it seems, is now admissible, then, as Canadian wheat at our frontier ; and, after 5th July 1843, will pay a duty of 3s. per quantr on the Canadian frontier ; when, according to the above quotation from the Spec.. tator, an equivalent reduction is to be made in the duty at our frontier.' After July 1843, therefore, American wheat exported via Canada, and trans- shipped from thence to British ports, will pay a fixed duty of 3s. per quarter at the Canadian frontier, and at our frontier a maximum duty of 2s. per quay. ter while the price is below 55s., or what is equivalent to a fixed duty in all of 5s. per quarter. This is quite evident from the Spectator's own words; and yet, in another part of the same article, he sneers at the idea of any new enact- ment on the subject. [Any new enactment to bring about what already is the law, which was the blunder that we corrected: we sneered at no new enactment to bring about that part of the scheme which is not yet the law]; the expectation of which he attributes to an admired confusion of facts,' which, he says, confound ' what already is the law with what is contemplated by the Canadians and the Imperial Government.' The Spectator says, that an equivalent reduction ' for the duty imposed at the Canadian frontier is to be made in the duty at our frontier.' We cannot conceive how that reduction can be effected without a new enactment. [Did the Spectator ever so task the gentleman's conceptions 7] The Canadians pushed forward their bill to give Lord Stanley time to prepare that new enactment, and assuredly they will ex- pect to hear that it is introduced into the House of Commons at the very earliest period of the ensuing session.
i
" Lord Stanley's despatch s quite explicit. [Its language is objected to in Canada as vague and obscure. Now we have the true explanation over again.] It alludes to the present Corn-Importation Act 'as the bill now before Parlia- ment, whereby a duty of 5s. is leviable only while the price is below 55s., and at 58s. falls to Is. only.' His Lordship adds, that he cannot propose further reductions' in the absence of the tax which the Canadian Parliament have since imposed on Ameircan wheat agreeably to his suggestions, and in consi- deration of which they accordingly rely that the existing duties levied on Cana- dian produce in British ports will be withdrawn 4 to the extent of free or nearly free admission.' Lord Stanley may try to thimblerig ' the Canadian Parlia- ment. If the Spectator speak from authority, there can be little doubt that some sleight-of-hand work is in contemplation; but he will have difficulty in getting over the evidence afforded by his despatch of the 2d of March last. A further blow must be given to the farmer's friends' by the Peel Cabinet next session of Parliament, or a most foul and indefensible breach of compact com- mitted against the people and Parliament of the Canadas." Here the motive to all this laborious bungling peeps out—the wish to find "bad in every thing," for the sake of party.
The Globe treated the subject also in a party-spirit, but with a tact and cleverness of which the dull City man of the Chronicle was incapable ; making out that the transfer of a duty from the British to the Canadian frontier, which is supposed to be the ob- ject of the arrangement, is a lavish gift of revenue from our own exchequer to the colony-
" We call this a most brainless burlesque on Liberal colonial policy. Liberal it is with a vengeance—the liberality of one whose money, in the vulgar phrase, burns a hole in his pocket. W ho but must recognize the Colonial Se- cretary who, in 1831, was a party to that famous policy which consigned the civil list to French Canadian discretion ! who but recognize the Minister of the twenty. million gift to the Planters! " wintimis non curet le.r, and non carat Lord Stanley. Whether the British Government, for the wants of the British people, is to levy the duties on American corn imported into the British market, or whether those duties are to be levied for the benefit of their clients and constituents by Messrs. Dincke, Baldwin, Lafontaine, and Company, he entertains a most lordly in- difference. If we are to admit your wheat at a lower duty,' says the Spec- tator, pereonating his Lordship, (we know not whether or not by authority,) 'you must tor American wheat for us.' The Canadian Parliament hasjumped at the word thrown out, it would seem, as carelessly as a fine gentleman de- volves on his steward all cares of receiving or paying cash for him. They have laid a duty on American corn ; and this the Spectator, founding fairly on the terms of Lord Stanley's despatch, construes as giving them a claim on the Government for further reductions in the duties now levied on corn from Canada. "The maximum of those duties: under the new law is 5s. Adding to this the duty now laid on American corn by the Canadian Parliament, eight shillings is now the maximum duty on American corn imported cid Canada. But by this construction of Lord Stanley's despatch, he promises the Canadians that a farther reduction of duties shall be made, on condition of their doing !chat they have done—i. e. taking the troublesome function off our hands of receiving duties on American corn. He did not ask them,' says the Spectator charm- ingly, to impose a duty on American wheat as a gratuitous favour to this country, but to transfer to their frontier the duty which they wished taken off in their favour at our frostier: they have done so ; and it follows that an equi- valent reduction is to be made in the duty at our frontier.' "American corn, then, is now admissible at a maximum duty of 5s. through Canada. The Canadians have imposed 3s. at their frontier. Arreqstivalent re- duction at ours will admit American corn at a maximum duty of two shit/Mgt Well done, Lord Tamboff I illustrious alike for excluding corn from Mid Muscovy, and admitting it from Western and North-western America! We do not affect to have any objection to this indirect door being opened to a con- tends with the United States, and we do not deny that this trade will be prefer- able to that with Russia—provided the States will give us what Russia won't, fair admission for our manufactures. But we certainly do admire the coolness of disclosing this hidden rat-hole in our dikes, as if it were the most normal and
is aperture in the world 'entirely in the spirit of Sir Robert Peel's promise that Canada should be treated as an integral part of the empire—an English county.'
e have been in the habit of considering English counties rather as fractional parts of the empire ; and his Grace of Wellington has been in the habit of considering their meetings as ' farces.' But this opens a new light to us as to the due prerogatives of colonies or counties. It explains and justifies a demand which was lately put forth in behalf of Lancashire, and the other manufacturing counties—to be allowed to eat foreign corn in bond, as well as to warehouse it. We thought this demand unlikely to be conceded, and did not echo it. But now, behold Canada, on the strength of its title to be treated as aa Eng/isk county, not only permitted to revel in American harvests for herself, but constituted the MONOPOLIST of their fruits destined for our market I Behold a colonial and fiscal monopoly, vast beyond all precedent in its subject- matter, established by an unnoticed clause in an act and an off-hand missive of a Minister I"
All this verbal dexterity tends to convey an impression that the measure is to work some positive mischief. Were the mischief a reality, fewer and plainer words would have sufficed. It must be borne in mind, that we are not now discussing the general question of the repeal of the Corn-laws, but only the rearrangement of a detail in the existing Corn-law. The principle of that law we have repeatedly and unequivocally condemned ; nay, this sup- posed arrangement of the Anglo-Canadian Corn-law renders the absurdity of the general system more naked to the sight, for it ex- hibits statesmen engaged in the ungracious and unwise task of arranging obstacles to the national supply of food. As an illustra- tion to that side of the question, at least, the project may be allowed to have some merit. But the immediate question is, does it make the Corn-law worse, or does it improve it ? It is implied that it entails a loss of revenue. That cannot be said to be lost which never was enjoyed ; and as the past Corn-law worked to the exelusion of United States corn we have not had much revenue
to boast of from that source. ! but it has lost us the revenue which we might have had with Lord JOHN RussELL's fixed eight. shilling duty. We never heard that Lord JOHN proposed a duty of 88. on Canadian wheat. But it is idle to compare existing things with what might have been if every thing else had been different ; and before we allow Lord JOHN the merit of a large possible revenue from duty on United States wheat, we must be assured that a large revenue from a tax on bread is desirable. It is assumed that a favour is conferred on the colony by permitting it to levy the tax: but the tax was exacted, not permitted ; and it is imposed on wheat consumed in the province as well as on that transhipped : in fact, the colony, which has hitherto enjoyed free trade in American wheat for its own use, without stint or tax, has taxed itself to please us— to extend the shield of " protection" over our agriculturists, in order to reap certain anticipated advantages of trade. The colonists are grudged those advantages, and reproached with a "monopoly." But surely the British subjects in Canada have a right to say, whether they approve of " protection " or not, If you set up that wall of exclusion, at least treat us as your kin : take us in, and do not shut us out among the aliens. Such is the contemplated ar- rangement: the bad wall of exclusion is maintained, but it is par- tially removed as to its site, to take in our own outlying province. The province expects considerable advantages from the plan ; the Western States of the Union also look for profit ; and in so far as the measure is operative the bread-consumers and the American traders here must benefit. Here are several practical and by no means despicable advantages. The reproach remains—and it is reduced to this—that the measure is not the repeal of the Corn- law ; which nobody affected to think it
Previous page
