104 



for this, and therefore the prosperity of our own 

 country and Canadian Colony would be promoted 

 more by the Corn Laws remaining as they are, 

 than if they were repealed. The commerce with 

 China and our Australian Colony would not be 

 retarded, nor the " most extensive commerce that 

 ever existed in the world** checked or interfered 

 with by the present Corn Laws. Why, then, repeal 

 or meddle with them ? They do not restrict the 

 growth of corn in our colonies ; they allow its 

 importation here at a low duty of 5s. a quarter, 

 which is a very trifling compensation for the dif- 

 ference in the expense of production ; they 

 protect colonial agriculture and encourage thereby 

 the employment of British capital and labour in the 

 production " of cheaper corn than ever has been 

 raised by means of the cheapness of land, which is 

 an attribute of colonies. '* The advocates for a free 

 corn trade may be assured that the Corn Laws 

 will not prevent them having corn " as cheap as 

 ever has been raised," nor will they interfere with 

 the commencement and progress of " the most 

 extensive commerce that ever existed ;" and will 

 not this satisfy them ? If Canada does not supply 

 our population with cheap corn, it is not the fault 

 of the Corn Laws. If, hitherto, British capital 

 and labour have not been employed so largely as 

 they might have been, if this has been the fault of 

 colonial mis-government, it has not been the fault 

 of the Corn Laws, which place no restriction upon 

 the introduction of Colonial corn. The art of colo- 



