Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/209

 constituencies with which it had no concern, only prolonged a contest which was one merely of time. He condemned all these associations as mischievous; but, acting on principle, he should vote as hitherto, with Mr. Villiers, and in repudiation of the sliding scale.

"Mr. Gladstone said it would be his duty to meet the motion of Mr. Villiers with a direct negative; and he hoped, therefore, that Mr. Ferrand would not place his amendment in the way of a direct 'ay' or 'no,' on a subject of so much importance as the Corn Laws. He was not an advocate of extreme protection, but confidence in the stability of a law was essential to the complete working of a measure which, so far as it had been tested by the experience of two peculiar and unusual years, had realized the most sanguine expectations. In 1842 they had spent eighteen nights in fair hard discussion on the Corn Laws; they could not renew it every year; and he claimed something like stability for (he decision of parliament. Sir Robert Peel was accused of having pro mised a particular price to the farmer for his grain. He had done no such thing, he had merely indicated that it would be desirable, if it were possible, to keep the price between 54s. and 58s.; and in the three seasons from 1842 to 1844 these limits were not exceeded, and the minimum, during the last year, had not been reached. Even Mr. Villiers was obliged to confess that, under this Corn Law, a foreign trade was maintained, not so extensive or so steady as he might desire, but sufficiently so for the supporters of the measure, which, in addition to its other merits, had realized a revenue, during the present year, of so much as 17s. the quarter. The existing law had obviated the objections which applied to its predecessor. The motion was directed, not so much against it as against the whole protective system sanctioned by the policy of the country; and there was, therefore, but one course for parliament to adopt, in putting a check to an agitation mischievous in its effects, by creating an impression of the instability of a law which ought to be considered as a settlement of the question.

"Lord John Russell found himself, like Sir Robert Peel a few evenings ago, in 'no very enviable position.' He was not prepared, either to say that the Corn Laws should be at once abolished, or that the existing law should be maintained. There were inherent vices in the present system, which indicated its premature decay; and when Mr. Gladstone appealed to the two last years, he merely proved that the present government, instead of being wiser, had only enjoyed much better weather than their predecessors. Would the existing Corn Law stand two successive bad harvests? It violated the commercial principle; while a fixed duty—whatever might be its amount, six, eight, or ten shillings— enabled the merchant to make his calculations with certainty. But he apprehended that a sudden repeal of the Corn Laws would cause panic,