expressly, and I believe repeatedly; that he had no intention of recommending the British system of policy for imitation, and adoption here; that he was no eulogist of England; in page 36, he says -"Let our arts breathe under the shades of protection-let them be protected as in England, and we shall then be ready, as England is now said to be, to put aside protection, and to enter upon the freest exchanges. To what other cause than to their whole prohibitory policy, can you ascribe British prosperity?" Here our orator expressly ascribes the prosperity of England to the whole of her prohibitory policy. The protection of her agriculture is the foundation of the whole, and is carried to a greater, and a more efficient extent, than any other. Here, this whole prohibitory policy, is expressly recommended for imitation; and it was but reasonable to expect; that American agriculture would be let in for its full share of protection by the tariff bill. Let us now see how this imitative policy is carried into effect, in relation to American agriculture? The protection in Great Britain, is founded, in what is called their corn laws; and which are triumphantly referred to by our orator in page 14.

"What sort of a figure would a member of the British Parliament have made? What sort of reception would his proposition have attained, if he had remonstrated against the corn law;" and in page 16, our orator most kindly observes; "our agriculture is our greatest interest. It ought ever to be predominat. All others should bend to it; and in considering what is for its advantage, we ought to contemplate it in all its various branches of planting, farming, and grazing. Can we do nothing to invigorate it?" In page 18, our orator observes; "For under all the modifications of social industry, if you will secure to it its just reward, the greater attractions of agriculture will give to it that proud superiority which it has always maintained." In page 39, "There is no doubt but that the yeomanry of a country is the safest depository of public liberty. In all time to come, and under any probable direction of the labor of our population, the agricultural class must be much the most numerous and powerful, and will ever retain, as it ought to retain, a preponderating influence in our public councils." Mr. Speaker, after all these plaudits, and promises, did you not expect that something would be done for the protection of agriculture? That one main object of the tariff, was to put it, in relation to other occupations, upon at least, as good a footing as British agriculture, in relation to the other occupations of that country? Let us now see, sir, how these gilded, deceptive promises, have been carried into effect, by the tariff bill. This, sir, is the main point of enquiry; and I therefore beg your most particular attention to it-I most earnestly entreat the best attention of the whole agricultural class, but most particularly of the wheatgrowers, to this enquiry. Its results will be rendered too plain, not to be understood, by every attentive mind. What then are the cornlaws of Great Britain, which afford protection to the agriculturists, there? What is the tariff here, which was avowed to be intended, to correspond with the British corn laws there? Let us critically examine this imitative policy, between Great Britain and the United

States. The corn laws of Great Britain absolutely prohibit the inportation of foreign corn, until the price of wheat shall amount to 80 shillings sterling, a quarter, of eight bushels; or eight shillings sterling per bushel. The tariff law imposes a duty of 25 cents upon the importation of foreign wheat. So begins, and so ends, the protection to the wheat growers! What are the relative local circumstances in regard to bread stuffs between Great Britain, and the United States, upon which, this imitative policy is founded? Great Britain is an importer of bread stuffs, to a great amount every year. A probibition, therefore, upon the importation of foreign grain, leaves the agriculture of Great Britain to its own rivalship. It excludes all foreign competition. Not growing bread stuffs enough, for home consumption, a good price for grain is thus always insured to the agriculturists; and the other classes of society are compelled to pay the monopoly price, which is generally double the price of the article in foreign countries. Under the tyranny of the corn laws, all other classes pay double as much for their bread, as they could purchase it for, from foreign countries, but for this tyrannical prohibition. In Great Britain then, the corn laws are found to be so operative, as to ensure an enormous bounty to the corn growers, and is the foundation of the whole monopolizing, or restrictive system. The United States are an exporting country of bread stuff of all kinds, but particularly of wheat. No foreign country, therefore, can compete with us in that article, in our own markets. Yet, as a protection to American wheat-growers, a duty of 25 cents is laid upon the importation of foreign wheat-that is the whole protection under our aspiring orator's, flattering, gilded promises. That provision is perfectly inoperative, and of course, the promised protection, nominal. No foreign wheat is ever imported into the United States, and of course, no duty is ever paid. This was precisely the case before the passage of the tariff; and it now is. In the ordinary condition of the country, therefore, the tariff protection of agriculture, is merely nominal, and inoperative. There is but one condition of the country, in which, it could be operative. That would happen, only in case of scarcity; in which case, the wheat-grower, would be more burthened with the impost upon wheat, than any other class in society. In the event of a scarcity, the farmer would require more imported grain-relatively than any other class of the community for his seed, and for his consumption, in consequence of his greater number of hands, and beasts of labor; and the farmer of course, would have more of the 25 cents duty to pay, than persons of any other occupations.

Of what then does the protection of agriculture consist? In the ordinary condition of the country, it consists of nothing. In the extraordinary case of scarcity, which in all human probability never will happen, it consists of a duty, mainly upon the agriculturist himself. Of what does the protection of manufactories consist under the Tariff? What is this protection made of. It consists of other people's money. It is made of other people's money. The protection of agriculture, then consists of burthens upon agriculture. The protec tion of manufactories consists, mainly of burthens upon agriculture—

high intolerable burthens upon agriculture. Is this reciprocity? Is it justice? Is it not the most intolerable injustice? Can it be borne ? Ought it to be borne? In regard to its imitative character with British policy, it would be quite laughable, were it not for its mischievous, and destructive effects upon agriculture-The best interests of the country. By the British protection, the British agriculturists are now receiving from the other classes of society, double prices for bread-stuffs, beyond the prices of prohibited foreign breadstuffs; whilst the American agriculturists receive nothing; and pay double prices to the manufacturer for every article of consumption --even for the implements of husbandry, which are used to raise the bread for the manufacturer. Here then, is a policy, professed to be imitative of British policy, recommended for the adoption of the United States; in a case, in which, the condition of the two countries, stands, not only without resemblance; but in direct contrast, with each other-what then, can be expected; but contrasted, instead of imitative, results!!!-As far as my knowledge extends, agriculture, in no civilized country under the sun, is placed by government in such a state of oppression, and degradation, and deterioration, as that of the United States. Done, too, by the tariff regulations! Whilst they promise every thing for the protection of agriculture! I have sometimes reluctantly been led to the conclusion; that there must have been some unaccountable carelessness, and inattention in the organization of the Tariff bill; otherwise, it could not be possible, that a majority of Congress could have placed agriculture in such a plundered and degraded condition; and the ridiculous attempt to gull, and appease the wheat-growers with 25 cents upon the importation of foreign wheat, whilst it affords him no beneficial relief whatever, is an inexcusable insult to his understanding. I beg, I entreat, the earnest, and unbiassed attention of the wheatgrowers particularly, to these plain demonstrations. But it is often asked, what harm has the Tariff done? Is not this a most extraordinary question? Look at its effects in the depression of the prices of agricultural productions, and the consequent depression in the prices of lands from the Potomac to the Gulf of Mexico; indeed, throughout the whole agricultural country of the United States? Look at the impoverished, sinking farmers? Ask the farmer-let every farmer ask himself-whether under the operations of this Tariff, he receives for the productions of his labor a cent more than the labor of producing them actually costs him? Ask whether the annual productions of his farm actually defray its annual expenditures? If he should indulge in imported articles, either foreign or domestic? whether he is not compelled to apply a portion of his capital to pay the current expenditures of the year? I know it is my own case, and I believe it is with most of my neighbors. This state of things cannot last long. Bankruptcy must be the consequence. Agriculture could not stand the burthens, if it would. No, sir! With the best possible disposition to support the Tariff, agriculture could not do it—It would inevitably sink under the effort. The burthen is intolerable.

But, Mr. Speaker, with all our flattering orator's deceptive promises to the agriculturist, he seems himself to intend to impose upon him the most intolerable burthens; at the very moment he is promising him a just reward for his industry. For, says our Orator,"But, if instead of these 500,000 artizans emigrating from abroad, "we" give, by this bill, employment to an equal number of our own citizens, now engaged in unprofitable agriculture, or idle from the want of business, the beneficial effect upon our farming interest would be nearly doubled." What are the means pointed out, in the bill, by the sagacious orator, for converting 500,000 farmers into as many manufacturers? The only means consist of burthens, so heavy upon the agriculturist, that he will be willing to escape from his own chosen calling, without the benefit of apprenticeship-no politechnic schools having been provided by the bill, to participate in the protection of the favored manufacturing class. And, in this way, the sagacious orator proposes to give to agriculture; "that proud superiority which it has always maintained." Can there be more preposterous absurdities than these? In almost a single aspiration, our bewildered orator, speaks of our now dispirited farming interest; of unprofitable agriculture; and of agriculture, always maintaining a proud superiority-promised to be bottomed upon a just reward to social industry. But this proud superiority, is to be obtained by giving to agriculture its just reward, with all the rest of social industry; whilst this just reward, is to consist of such heavy impositions upon agriculture, as to drive 500,000 of its class, into the manufacturing class, to participate with them in the protection afforded by the bill; and which constitutes, the very just reward to the agriculturist. Can there be collected together, more ridiculous absurdities, more incoherent conceptions, and more palpable contradictions, than are huddled up together, in the foregoing quotations? But there is one expression in the group, which stands pre-eminently distinguished; and serves to demonstrate, more than any other, the sublimated, intoxicated state, of our aspiring orator's enchanted mind.

But, says the orator; as if "Jove in his chair of the sky Lord Mayor." "If 'we' give by this bill, employment to an equal number of citizens." Had the buoyant orator ever thought or inquired what employment "we" have to give? Suppose "we" have no employment to give by this bill, or in any other way; what then will become of his brilliant promises? I presume, that our enchanted orator has found out by this time, that "we" have no employment to give. Governments have no employment to give. What employments can they have to give? They may vary occupations by tyrannical measures, always believed to be for the worse, but they can create none. Our orator, however, seems to think, that, "we" can do every thing. Jehovah's lords on earth, or, at least, God's vicegerents on earth.-"We" have the whole world in a sling; and although, according to our great prototype, goodfor-nothing fellows, "we" are ruling and fixing the destinies of the world; for purposes of benificence, for bettering the condition of the people; our standard, our own unlimited pleasure, or caprice. ProJific invention!!-Filling the world with experimental schemes, despotic restrictions upon the liberties of the people-varying their

with

occupations, and the distributions of their labor. Listen now, sir, to some of the delusive misconceptions and miscalculations of our bewildered orator, which although then standing on conjecture, are now reduced to experience. Our buoyant orator triumphantly asks in page 14" What sort of a figure would a member of the British parliament have made; what sort of a reception would his opposition have obtained, if he had remonstrated against the passage of the corn law, by which British consumption is limited to the bread-stuffs of British production, to the entire exclusion of American?" Might not this question," now," with much more propriety, be reverberated, upon our short-sighted orator? What sort of a figure, would a member of the British Parliament "now" make; if "now" he did not remonstrate, against the corn laws? What sort of a figure, does our buoyant, deluded orator, himself, "now" make; after having placed the policy of his tariff scheme, upon the whole policy of the British restrictive system, and particularly upon the corn laws, as its main pillar, when the policy of the whole system has been denounced, by the British ministry, and, as far as practicable, abandoned? No man, I presume, ever was silly enough, however, to suppose, that upon the moment of the discovery of the mischievous tendency of measures, which were transfused through all the ramifications of society, a competent remedy could be instantly applied, and the evil instantly corrected. No, sir, corrections of these complicated evils are not to be easily, and instantly effected; and the difficulties in providing the corrections,_ought most strongly to admonish us against their original adoption. But with our enchanted, infatuated tariff-schemers, every consideration which ought to have insured delay, caution and circumspection, was urged in favor of precipitation. Let me, sir, again entreat you to behold the contrast between the British corn laws, as affording protection to British agriculture, and the American tariff laws, as affording protection to American agriculture. The British corn laws, in effect, give a bounty upon bread-stuffs of double its actual price, on a fair principle of general competition. The American tariff gives no effective bounty or reward whatever. Is that all? Oh no. The American tariff makes the grower of bread-stuffs pay, perhaps, double price, upon almost all imported articles which are necessary for the consumption of agriculture, not excepting the very implements of husbandry themselves, employed in making bread for the subsistence of the manufacturers. Hence, whilst the British shoemaker, pays the British agriculturist, double price; and receives, only the lowest price of labor for his shoes; the American agriculturist, pays the American shoemaker, double price for his shoes; and receives nothing, from the shoemaker, but, the most depressed price for his bread.-The case equally applies, to every article required for the consumption of the American agriculturist.-Behold the contrast, in the practical operations of this pretended imitative policy!!! It is impossible, however, not to yield to a necessity which strikes at the very salvation of the nation. In Great Britain, under this unjust, cruel, tyrannical system, the manufacturers are compelled to give to the British grower for all his bread-stuffs, double the price he could get them for from foreign countries. The British manufacturer, therefore, subsists himself at double the cost of his