uty on corn was equally
applicable to both. Nor could, he argued, a fixed duty be permanent: he
did not think they could impose any amount of fixed duty sufficient for
the protection of agriculture in years of average supply, which
they could determinately and fixedly impose in times of distress and
scarcity. Sir Robert Peel next entered into a variety of arguments to
show that this country, in ordinary years, was able to supply its own
population. From the arguments he used he came to the conclusion that it
was not advisable for parliament to alter the principle of the existing
law; and the alteration which he would therefore propose went on the
principle of retaining a duty on corn, varying inversely with the
price of corn in the home market. He continued by observing that the
maintenance of that principle involved the maintenance of a system of
averages; and after expressing doubts whether there had not been
much exaggeration as to the frauds and combinations to influence
the averages, he thus stated the proposals of government respecting
them:--"We shall propose to take the averages in the present mode, from
the factor, the miller, or the purchaser. We shall propose that the duty
of collecting the returns shall devolve on the excise. The excise is
perfectly competent to this duty; it has officers employed in each
market-town fully competent for the discharge of this duty by having
greater duties to perform, and who will be able at a comparatively
small increase of expense to fulfil this employment; and by their
intelligence, their business habits, and the responsibility which
attaches to them as public officers, they will afford far greater
security against fraud than can be obtained by intrusting this duty to
private individuals." After stating that the averages were to be taken
in all the principal corn-markets, Sir Robert stated the amount of
protection to be given to the produce of this country. Having shown how
the duty varied under the existing laws, and that they induced fraud,
and having made some remarks on the term "remunerating price," he thus
described his new scale:--"We propose that when corn is at 50s. and
under 51s. in price, a duty of 20s. shall be taken; but that in no case
shall that duty be exceeded. We propose that when the price is 51s. and
under 52s., the duty shall be 19s.; and after this we propose that there
shall be what I should term a rest in the scale. That at the next items
of price the