TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH SIR ROBERT PEEL TAKES OFFICE :
A SLIDING SCALE OF DUTY ON IMPORTED CORN.
THE most striking circumstance about the lengthy debate on Lord BANDON'S amendment, is the curious contrast which the speeches of Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL present in them- selves, and to the situations occupied by both speakers. Lord -JOHN RUSSELL, who in his capacity of Minister might have been expected to be chary of hampering himself with declarations of abstract opinion, and who has on all former occasions shown what the late Lord CASTLEREAGH would have called a hydrophobia of abstract principles, dealt largely in most unexceptionable but somewhat vague generalities in favour of free trade, saying com- paratively little in favour of the proposed change iu the Sugar- duties, or any other details of the Budget. Sir ROBERT PEEL, on the other hand, was large on matters of detail ; anxious to retain all parties who have an interest in existing protective duties, careful to offend as little as possible those who wish to see them relaxed, and yet refraining as much as possible from any statements suffi- ciently explicit to tie up his hands from any course of action he may hereafter find expedient. The Minister's speech was the speech of a leader of Opposition, and the leader of Opposition spoke as if pressed with a sense of the difficulties and responsi- bilities of office. Both parties felt that the transfer of power has been effected, although the formal dismission and acceptance may be postponed for a little. Sir ROBERT'S speech is a declaration of the principles upon which he accepts office, at least in so far as commercial policy is concerned. Sir ROBERT is friendly to " the relaxation of restrictions on commerce"; but as to free trade, " I will have nothing to do with your mere abstract principles, without knowing the circumstances under which and the time at which you propose to apply them." This means any thing or nothing : to the protected interests it says, " I will not strip you of protection" ; to the remonstrants against protective duties, " I will lighten the burdens you com- plain of as much as possible." Neither Sugar-duties nor Timber- duties are worth many years' purchase under Sir ROBERT'S Pre- miership. He repudiates the abstract doctrine of the impropriety of consuming the produce of slave-labour ; and as to the Timber- duties—" I reserve to myself an unfettered action on this point."
On Corn, however, he is somewhat more explicit. Not, indeed, that he forecloses all hope of his being moved to do something here in time for the relief of the consumer; but he takes up his ground on the justice and expediency of a graduated or sliding scale as opposed to a fixed duty. Sir ROBERT, confident that the majority of 36 against the modification of the Sugar-duties proposed by Ministers will not be diminished when their proposal to sub- stitute a fixed duty of 88. per quarter comes to be discussed, de- clares, as the organ of the majority of the present Parliament, that home-grown corn shall continue to be protected, and that the protection shall be afforded by means of a shifting scale of duty. The difference between the commercial policy of the coming and of the evaporating Premier is, that the former will protect home- grown corn by a sliding duty on imported corn, while the latter wishes to protect it by a fixed duty. Sir ROBERT PEEL is ready to take office as the champion of a graduated or shifting scale of duty on foreign corn for the protection of the British agriculturist.
Sir ROBERT speaks confidently on the subject, but has not as yet developed the process of reasoning by which he has arrived at his conclusion. " When this question is discussed I will enter into its details." Sir ROBERT is plausible—very plausible; but it may rea- sonably be doubted whether he has not undertaken a task beyond even his powers, when he undertook to persuade the general public that a shifting scale of duty is preferable to a fixed one. The obvious effect of a shifting scale of duty is to introduce an artificial element of uncertainty into the corn-trade. " Suppose," says Mr. M'Cuetoca in his Dictionary of Commerce, " a merchant com- missions a cargo of wheat when the price is uls. a quarter ; in the event of the price declining only 3s. or to 68s., the duty will rise from 6s. 8d. to 16s. 8d.; so that if the merchant brings the grain to market, he will realize 13s. 8d. a quarter less than he expected, nd 10s. less than he would have done had there been no duty, or the duty been constant!" The statements which have been made by Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY and other extensive corn-factors regarding the gambling character impressed upon the corn-trade by the sliding scale of duty, illustrate this position—strike the minds of readers with a sense of the extent of the evil, but cannot add to the certainty of Mr. M'CuLLoca's mathematical demonstration. The evil effects are not confined to the corn-dealer. The uncertainty created by a sliding scale of duty deters merchants from importing grain, and deters the foreigner from raising grain for our market. When a bad year occurs, there is no surplus of grain in the foreign markets to meet our. demand. We raise the prices there, are looked upon as interlopers, and met probably by a temporary closing of the ports. The scanty supplies obtained at exorbitant prices must be paid in gold : a sudden demand for more manufac- tured goods than we export in the regular routine of trade cannot be created by our short harvest ; and there are no bills to pay for the corn, for all that are in the market are required to adjust the balances arising out of the ordinary transactions of regular trade. The derangement of the exchanges thus occasioned, and the con- sequent drain of gold, paralyzg our home trade, and throw the whole of our foreign trade into confusion. The agriculturist
suffers likewise : the shifting scale of duty exposes him to have his prices beaten down by the competition of the foreign grower at the very moment that he needs them kept up to compensate for the short returns of the harvest. All parties suffer by a sliding scale of duty. If we are to have a tax on imported grain, let it be a fixed duty.
Sir ROBERT, in the course of his speech on Tuesday evening, was unguarded enough to let out the real ground upon which the substitution of a fixed for a sliding scale of duty is opposed —" The noble lord will propose the adoption of a fixed duty ; but I will offer my opposition to it, on the ground that I do not think a fixed duty can be permanent." Sir ROBERT does not object to the rate of fixed duty proposed by Ministers as excessive—" I cannot help thinking that the duty of 8s. on wheat and of 3s. 4d. on oats will be found to be insufficient for the present state of agricultural prosperity." Sir ROBERT tells Ministers that the country will not submit to a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter on wheat. " Suppose the honourable Members for Finsbury and Wolverhamp- ton detail some of those cases of severe privation which exist in the manufacturing towns : suppose the cry of bread-taxation is raised, and suppose the noble lord is met by that illegitimate war- fare of which he has set the example : what is his confidence that he will be enabled to maintain his fixed duty ?" And in the same breath he tells them that 8s. is a lower rate of duty than be wishes to see imposed. It was shown by Mr. M'CULLOCH some years ago, that 6s. ld.* was the average amount of duty under the sliding system : Lord Joan RUSSELL would raise this rate of duty to 8s., and Sir ROBERT wishes it raised still higher. The shifting scale is supported because it prevents the people from knowing the real amount of the tax upon imported grain ; because it reconciles them to the high rate of duty in plentiful years, by a delusive show of reduction in years of scarcity—a delusive show, for when the rise of prices reduces the duty to a rate at which corn can be im- ported there is no corn to be had, or if there is, it can only be pro- cured by operations which derange our currency.
In undertaking the defence of the shifting scale of duty on corn, Sir ROBERT will find that he has occupied an untenable position. It is true he speaks the sense of the present House of Commons, and most likely of the House of Commons to be returned at the dissolution which is said to be impending. But his own experience in the matter of Catholic Emancipation has taught him that such majorities have been ere now undermined and borne down by the operation of public opinion. The portion of the community which avows the principle that no tax ought to be imposed upon grain, is numerous, increasing, and indefatigably active. The portion which holds that a low fixed duty is the very utmost that ought to be imposed, is still more numerous. It is not to the Ministerial fixed duty of 8s., but to those general principles, that be has thrown down the gauntlet. He himself declared in his speech on Tuesday evening—" I consider the prosperous state of the manufacturing industry of this country to be intimately connected with the welfare of our agriculture, and I believe the prosperity of our manufactures is a greater support to our agriculture than any system of corn-laws could be." Thus at odds with him- self—avowing general principles irreconcileable with those by which he professes to regulate his conduct—he is not the man to make a stand against the advance of a great truth which is every day receiving an accession to the number of its supporters. Nor is a House of Commons which not ten years ago was revolutionized in its constitution, or a House of Lords which could only protest against the change and yield to it, a mound capable of resisting the pressure of popular opinion. If Sir ROBERT is bent upon retain- ing office, as he seems to have made up his mind to accept office, he must do it by giving up the Corn-laws as he gave up the laws excluding the Catholics from seats in the Legislature. In such a case, his official career will form a curious episode in the history of this country—doomed to be the foremost champion against free trade and free thought, and at the same time the instrument of emancipating both.
Previous page
