Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/275

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL.
259

ton's Parliamentary Logic, he took advantage of the warmth of Mr. O'Connell, to make a diversion from the main question. He said, however, to the consternation of many of his supporters, that while he preferred a graduated duty he did not pledge himself to support the details of the existing law; and if the agricultural interest gave him their support on the condition of supporting those details, he was not prepared to accept that support. He had been called upon to develope his plans, because he was supposed to be coming into power; but he repudiated the absurdity of a public man irrevocably pledging himself to plans, which reconsideration, when in office, might deem it expedient to modify. If he could believe that the alteration of the Corn Laws would cure the lamentable distresses of which they had heard so much, he would recommend to the landowners, for their own sake, to submit to a sacrifice; and would propose a relaxation, nay, a repeal of the laws. But he did not believe that the Corn Laws were the cause of the great fluctuations in commerce, or of the distresses which they produced.

Lord John Russell followed. He said that Sir Robert Peel had not been called upon to give his detailed plans; he had merely been asked to state the principles which would guide him. The right honourable baronet would adopt the Reform Act, and all those great measures to which he and his party had been opposed; but still he resolutely adhered to the sliding scale, which he (Lord John) firmly believed to be the main cause of all the distresses of the country. The sliding scale was a prohibitory duty, destroyed all regularity in commerce, and was injurious to the great body of the people. He admitted that, if, according to Sir R. Peel's supposition, corn rose as high as 90s. or 100s. no duty could be maintained at all; but he considered that if the field of supply was extended, the less likely was it that a scarcity could occur. The principles of free trade were greatly promoted by such a discussion