Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/381

to which he had been exposed for the speech he had lately made, he would again declare, that the prosperity of agriculture must depend on the prosperity of the other branches of native industry, and that this prosperity would be most effectually promoted by giving an uninterrupted course to the natural flow of native industry. He would not deny that it was his opinion, that by a gradual and cautious policy it was expedient to bring our system of Corn Laws into a nearer approximation to those wholesome principles which governed our legislation with respect to other industrial departments. It was, however, his conviction that suddenly and at once to throw open the trade in corn would be inconsistent with the well-being of the community, and would give such a shock to the agricultural interest as would throw many other interests into a state of convulsion. The object of every government, without distinction of party, for the last twenty years, had been to substitute protecting for prohibitory duties, and to reduce gradually protecting duties where it had them to deal with. He approved this as a safe principle, and showed that it was the keystone of the policy of Sir Robert Peel. He asserted that the Corn Law of 1842 was expressly meant to lessen the protection then enjoyed by the agricultural interest. He also combated the doctrine of Mr. Villiers, that under a system of protection no improvement had taken place, nor could possibly take place, in the agriculture of the country. He showed that England, with a population the double of that which it possessed fifty years ago, now provided food for it with greater ease than it did formerly for half the number. If Mr. Villiers could show him that free trade with open ports would produce a more abundant supply to the labourer, he would make him & convert to the doctrine of free trade in corn. He confessed that he placed no value on the fixed duty of 4s. proposed by Lord John Russell, it would be of no avail as a protection, whilst it would be liable to all the obloquy