brought up the Report of the Bill for a New Street from Mary bone Park to Pall-Mall.

adverted to the very considerable expence which must be incurred by pulling down from 7 to 900 houses, according to the plan. His first objection was to the clearing away so much valuable property as would be necessary to be removed in order to form the intended square opposite Carlton-house. There were many houses in Charles-street which might be well spared, but he understood that the plan included the demolition of the house of lord Galloway, which was worth (as he supposed) 16 or 17,000l. His next objection was to the circusses, which were to be made where this street was to cross Piccadilly and Oxford-street. These circusses would not only entirely spoil the view down those two fine streets, but would oblige the passengers to go out of their way. He thought those circusses would be nuisances in the day-time; but he could not say what they would be in the night. The reason which the surveyor, Mr. Nash, had given for this circus in Oxford-street, was, "that it would avoid the sensation of passing Oxford-street, and insensibly unite the two divisions of the city." Now he must stand up for Oxford-street, even against the opinion of Mr. Nash, and say, that he did not think so fine a street ought to be spoiled, merely to avoid the sensation of crossing it. The estimate of the expence of this street was 500,000l.; but he understood that it would cost a great deal more. He understood that the Globe Insurance Company were to lend 300,000l. of this money, at 5 per cent. on the condition of having the whole of the crown property insured at their office. He did not know that this was an improper bargain, but he hoped that as much economy as possible would be used in so large an expenditure.

said, that he thought the calculations, which he laid before the House, were most accurately made. He was disposed to rely as much on the estimates of Mr. Nash, as the hon. gentleman was upon those which he had received. His own estimate was 330,000l. and an amendment which he meant to propose for some improvements in Swallow-street would make it 40,000l. more.

said, as they differed so much about estimates, that he wished to see that word changed for contracts. He also wished to have this whole plan executed by contract, and not, as was sometimes usual, by giving a commission of 5 per cent. to the architect. If example were necessary to recommend this, he would mention that of Mr. Pitt, relative to the commissioners of the Sinking Fund.

After a desultory conversation, during which Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Baring, sir J. Newport, Mr. Preston, and sir Robert Heron, spoke against some parts of the plan of the New Street, and in favour of economy, the amendments were read a second time; after which the Bill was engrossed, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

said, it was his duty, as chairman of the Corn Committee, to call the attention of the House to the Report which had been laid on the table.^* He was not so presumptuous as to think that an alteration in the Corn Laws was a subject free from great difficulty, but he was satisfied that every pains had been taken by those who were the most capable of judging correctly upon it, to overcome that difficulty. Since the Committee had made their Report, frequent consultations had been held between those members of the Committee who were the most diligent in their attendance and the government, concerning the resolutions which were recommended by the Committee; the several interests that were implicated in them had been minutely considered, and such alterations made in them as would enable him to propose them to the House with a very sanguine expectation that they would be found in every respect well calculated to attain the object of sufficient supply of corn of our growth, at steady and moderate prices. As there was no subject on which the passions of men are so violent and their judgment so weak, and on which there always exists a multitude of ill founded prejudices, it was very essential in the first instance distinctly to declare, and forcibly to impress upon the House, and through it on the public at large, what was the intention of the proposed alteration of the Corn Laws. But before stating what it was, it would be proper to say what it was not. It was not the object of the Report of the Committee to increase the profits of any particular set of dealers, either of farmers or of landlords. Their situation required no such aid. Their affairs had long been, and still were in a very prosperous condition. They were no parties to this proceeding, no petitions had been presented to the House by them, nor was any complaint made by them of the existing regulations which governed the Corn Trade. The Committee, so far from adopting those views, which have usually influenced the leading advocates of the landed interest, of high prices for agricultural produce, have proposed to abolish the system of giving bounties on the exportation of corn, which has at all times been considered by them as of essential importance to farming profits. They have been influenced by no other motive than that of a strong sense of the danger of continuing to depend upon our enemies for a sufficient supply of food, and of the impolicy of sending our money to improve other countries, while we have so much of our own lands that stand in need of the same kind of improvement. The whole object of their Report is merely to prove the evils which belong to this system as it now exists, and to obtain such an alteration in the law as shall draw forth our own means into operation of growing more corn, by increasing the capital that is now vested in agriculture. If they succeed in this they will secure a greater production of grain, at the same time with diminished expences in producing it, and at reduced prices to the consumer. For if the agricultural capital is considerably increased, its effects on the quantity produced, and the expence of production, and also in lowering prices, will be just the same as when employed in manufactures. Every one knows how it operates in increasing the quantity of manufactures; and that those who employ it in manufactures can afford to sell them at very reduced prices, in consequence of the reduced expences at which with its help they can make them. In the same way the farmer by being able to render his land more productive in proportion as he improves it, and at a small expence according as he makes use of good implements, will be able to afford to sell his corn at reduced prices; and in this manner the increase of agricultural capital will secure us a sufficiency of food independant of foreign supply, and at the same time at a reduced price to the consumer. That great evils belong to the present system it is scarcely to be imagined that any one can deny. The average price of wheat for the last year was 125s.; for an average of the four last years 105s. A very considerable proportion of this rise of price is owing, no doubt, to the depreciation of money. But no small part of it to the system of importing corn from foreign countries; for no greater error can be fallen into, than that of supposing the prices of corn are kept down by foreign importation. If the prices of a single year or only of any short period of time are taken into our calculation, a supply of foreign corn will no doubt diminish them, and for that period make them lower than they otherwise would be. But, let the question be examined on a more general view of it, and the way to look at it, is to examine what effect this lowering of price will have on the production of corn of home growth in the following years. If the effect of it is to diminish the profit of the British farmer, as it no doubt is, it operates two ways in diminishing the production of British corn, first by diminishing his capital, which depends on his profits, and secondly by making him apprehensive of disappointment if he continues to keep the whole of his capital vested in land. But this diminution in the production of British corn, it will be said, may be made good by an increased supply of imported corn. So it certainly may, but in what way does this system of successively increased importation operate on prices? It is clearly the interest of the merchant importers to have the price as high as possible; they will, therefore, so manage the supplying of the market as to let it be as high as circumstances can make it before they come into it. These merchants, knowing the home growth is inadequate to the demand, will naturally allow the deficiency to run up the price exceedingly high before they come forward to provide for it; and in this way the price of corn is at all times regulated by the deficiency, and not at all lowered by importation until the established merchant importers become afraid of competitions being set on foot with them by excessive high prices encouraging new dealers to embark in their trade. And then, when they do bring their foreign corn into market, they give it out in such quantities as shall not much lower the prices; and always very carefully prevent any thing like a competition of foreign corn against foreign corn, but, on the contrary, being very well aware that a very high price on a small quantity, will pay them much better and with infinitely less trouble and risk, than a moderate price on a larger quantity, they feed the market by little and little, and thus render the deficiency of our home growth a perpetual source of great profit to themselves, and of high prices to the consumer. So long, therefore, as we are in any degree deficient in supplying ourselves with corn of our own growth, there must be a degree of advanced price of corn which would otherwise never exist; foreign importation in fact denotes the existence of such an advanced price; that capital is by some means or other diverted from agriculture; and that the consumers of corn are more or less at the mercy of the merchant importers, and giving them a profit through an advanced price that ought to go to increase the capital of the farmer; and enable him to grow more and more corn in proportion as the wants of the people increase. The accuracy of this reasoning is in a great degree sustained by the notoriety of the immense fortunes which have been made of late years by those who are concerned in the trade of importing corn. But the great practical evil which belongs to our present system is the degree of dependance in which we exist on our enemies for a supply of corn. In the last 21 years we have paid them 58,634,135l. In 1810, we imported from France 334,887 quarters of wheat, and 202,922 cwt. of flour. This importation from France enabled the French Emperor to quell a very serious insurrection that had commenced in consequence of the low price of corn in the south of France; and to collect a very large revenue from us by a high duty on the corn he allowed us to bring away. But if there had not been a plentiful harvest that year in France, if, in addition to this circumstance, the continental system had excluded us from drawing a supply from Germany and Poland; and if we had then been at war with America, and the government of that country had combined with the Emperor of France to take advantage of our want of corn, what extreme misery must have been the consequence to the lower orders of the community? But though we escaped this misery in that year, we are and shall be continually exposed to it, so long as we remain indifferent to the danger that threatens us, and make no effort to secure a sufficiency of corn of our own growth for our consumption. This consideration is surely of the very first importance, for if we look into the history of mankind we shall find there never has been an instance of a large nation continuing with undiminished vigour to support four or five millions of its people on imported corn. It is also a great evil that we should so largely contribute to the improvement of the lands of foreign countries, and to their national wealth and prosperity, while so much of our lands stand in need of improvement, and we have so large a portion of our people, as the lower orders of the people of Ireland, in a state of the greatest poverty and misery. If the mil- lions which have been spent in buying foreign corn had been circulated among the small farmers of Ireland, the face of that country and the condition of the people would have been very different from what they now are. It should also be observed that the system of importing foreign corn goes directly to increase the naval strength of our enemies, as the trade is entirely carried on in foreign ships, navigated by foreign seamen. Such then being the evils belonging to this system, in looking for a proper remedy, the first thing to be ascertained is, whether the united kingdom possesses the means of growing a sufficiency of corn for its own consumption. The means which England, Scotland and Wales possess of increasing the production of corn are so well known, that the Committee did not consider it necessary to examine any evidence on that head. Every one who has ever turned his attention to this subject, must allow that the average acreable produce of the land now in tillage might be greatly increased by the general introduction of the improved system of husbandry. This system is now confined to a very few English counties, and the eastern counties of Scotland; if it were extended over the whole island this circumstance alone would render us independant of foreign supply. Every one also knows what resources of additional production the waste lands afford. But it is in Ireland where an additional growth of corn may be obtained in the greatest abundance. As the state of the tillage and the capacity of extending it of that country is not much known here, the Committee felt it to be their duty to give to the House all the information it was in their power to collect. This fully proves that the means of Ireland to grow more corn, are not only adequate to supply the deficiency of this country, but to provide for a great exportation to our colonies and foreign countries. Such being the state of the case, in regard to the powers we possess of growing even more than we want, it next comes to be considered in what way we can best draw those powers into action, and we are thus led to examine the several political institutions which in any way interfere with agriculture. The laws that relate to the importation of foreign corn are those which are of the most effect and importance, and as some of them restrain it, others encourage it, we are called upon to examine by re- ference to general principles, and to experience, which of the two systems is the best. Those who advocate the system of a free trade in grain found their opinions on the authority of Dr. A. Smith. But if the writings of this able writer are carefully examined, it will be found that he recommends a free trade only on the supposition that all the nations of Europe should adopt the same common policy. He says, "Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation, and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided, would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire. As among the different provinces of a great empire, the freedom of the inland trade appears, both from reason and experience, not only the best palliative of a dearth, but the most effectual preventive of a famine; so would the freedom of the exportation and importation trade be among the different states into which a great continent was divided."

From this reasoning, and this is the only reasoning he makes use of on the subject, it is plain that his opinion is a conditional opinion, and founded on the assumption that the policy of Europe ought to be altogether different from what it really is. The fair inference therefore to be drawn from his argument is, that he would not have advised a free trade as the best suited to the actual state of things. But it is not necessary to rest the case of a contrary system on such an inference, for if we take his general principles, and analyze his arguments for proving the impolicy of all legislative interference with trade, we shall find they do not apply to the case of the corn trade. He shews that such interference is bad because it diverts capital from its natural course into channels in which it is less productive, and less beneficial to the community; and because we may either do without those things or obtain cheaper from foreign countries, which are considered so desirable to be attained by so leading capital out of its own way to produce them. Now in regard to the producing of corn, what he says upon the effects of capital employed in agriculture, proves that there can exist no such evil as that of improperly leading it into tillage, especially so long as we do not grow enough for our own supply. He says, "The capital employed in agriculture, not only puts in motion a greater quantity of pro- ductive labour than any equal capital employed in manufactures, but in proportion too, to the quantity of productive labour which it employs, it adds a much greater value to the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, to the real wealth and revenue of its inhabitants, of all the ways in which a capital can be employed, it is by far the most advantageous to the society."

^* A copy of the Report will be found in the Appendix to vol. 25.

If, then, any law shall contribute to vest more capital in agriculture, than would have been vested in it if no such law had existed, it cannot be productive of the injury, that the generality of laws which so interfere with capital give rise to, because that capital cannot be employed in a way more beneficial to the community. In respect to the other objection, that such laws contribute to the production of things with the use of which we may dispense, or if necessary obtain cheaper and better from foreign countries, we have Dr. Smith's own authority for saying that the nature of things has stamped on corn a peculiar value, and, therefore, for saying, that the trade in corn forms an exception to all trades, and ought not to be governed by the same general rules. This peculiar value consists in the absolute necessity of having it within our reach, and without being at the mercy of any other country for a supply of that, on which our very existence depends. We may do without cotton or sugar, or silk, or tea, or we might obtain them cheaper from our enemies than from our colonies, but that supply of corn which is necessary to keep the people from famine, cannot be dispensed with. Just then, in proportion as we habituate ourselves to receive any part of it from foreign countries, we expose ourselves to a famine, or a disgraceful submission to them whenever they may find themselves, in consequence of our harvests being bad, enabled to deprive us of the means of subsistence. If then an independant supply of a sufficiency of corn for our own consumption obviously and necessarily forms one of the most essential objects of national concern, that part of Dr. Smith's writings, which points out in what manner the supply of any particular commodity is best to be secured is exactly and most forcibly in point to shew the necessity of restriction on foreign importation. He says, that the supply of any commodity will always be in proportion to the demand for it. Let us see how this doctrine will apply to this case of a supply of corn of British growth. If the demand for it can be met by a supply partly of home growth, and partly of foreign growth, it is plain that its effect on increasing the home growth, must be lessened just in the degree by which that of foreign growth is brought to meet it. To have, therefore, the full benefit of this principle of Dr. Smith's in aid of the object of an independant supply of British growth, no part of the demand ought to be supplied by corn of foreign growth, the importation of it ought to be restrained, and in this manner, a reliance on this general principle for governing our legislative regulations would directly go, first to the increase of the production of corn of British growth, and finally to the establishing of so greatly an augmented growth of corn as would secure at all times an abundant supply of it. So far, therefore, as the principles of political æconomy bear on the trade in corn, it may be said that the very peculiar character of this trade takes it out of the general rule, and that the superior advantages which flow from a capital vested in agriculture, to the general wealth and improvement of the community, when coupled with the vital exigency of securing an independant supply of corn, justify those legislative measures, which have for their object the investment of as much capital in tillage, as shall be adequate to the end of rendering us completely free from the aid of foreign and hostile nations. But such measures would not be requisite was there no legislative interference whatever in matters of trade. If capital was left quite free from the interposition of laws giving encouragement to its investment in every species of manufacture, and every branch of trade, there would be no necessity for any parliamentary regulations. It is in order to counteract the perpetual operation of the system of bounties, monopolies, and protecting duties in taking capital from agriculture, that any law in favour of the corn trade becomes desirable. If every kind of trade were perfectly free, agriculture would not require any protection; but as every kind of trade is supported by some sort of legislative aid, it is folly to refuse it to that trade which is the main support of all others. If all those who are concerned in manufactures and commerce will consent to adopt the system of a perfect free trade, those who are now advocates for restraints on the importation of corn will willingly abandon on their part all claim to any such protection. The history of the corn trade and corn laws of this country affords abundant illustration of the accuracy of the foregoing reasoning on general principles, and of the expediency of restraining the importation of foreign corn. By the law of 1670, if the price of wheat exceeded 53s. per quarter, there was a duty payable on the importation of foreign corn of 8s. per quarter: if it was below that price there was a duty of 16s. per quarter. This regulation was in fact a prohibition of importation, for the price of 53s. in those days was a famine price. This law remained in force till 1773, except when suspended by annual acts. The accounts of the imports and exports of grain shew that so long as it was in operation, there was a constant excess of exportation. In 1773, the system of restraining importation was abandoned, and a contrary one adopted. The same accounts shew that, with very few exceptions, there has been a constant excess of importation. In the last few years the quantity imported has been very much diminished, and the home growth, greatly increased, but these circumstances are to be accounted for by the new restraints that have been imposed on importation by the decrees of the French government, and the operation of the continental system in interrupting the trade between this country, and those parts of the continent from whence corn is usually brought. To these restraints are to be attributed the high and steady prices which corn has brought during the last four years; the consequent increased production of it at home; and the very satisfactory result, of our having exported more than we imported in each of the last two years. In 1811, the value of corn exported from the United Kingdom to foreign countries exceeded that which was imported by 286,910l. and in 1812, it exceeded it by 285,379l. If the trade with the continent was again opened either by the retreat of the French emperor, or by peace, these restraints would be removed, the existing law would afford no obstacle in the way of importation; and so much foreign corn would come in, as would deprive the growers of it of a fair return for the labour and capital they have applied in extending tillage, and they would necessarily by such events be discouraged from continuing their spe- culations in improving their lands, and increasing the production of corn. The progress we are rapidly making to complete independence in regard to a sufficient supply would in this way be totally put a stop to, and the whole mischief, from which we have nearly escaped, would be again established. For these reasons it is peculiarly necessary, under the existing circumstances of European politics, to provide at this particular time against so great an evil. The effect of the French decrees in advancing the tillage of Ireland has been peculiarly striking. The increased demand for all the corn that he could grow, in consequence of the usual supplies from Holland, Germany and Poland being cut off, has given the greatest stimulus to the Irish farmers, and enabled them to provide in the last year for an exportation of corn of the value of three millions. This is a state of things wholly new in that country, and only to be accounted for by the difficulties of obtaining corn from the continent. Every one who knows any thing of the interior of Ireland agrees in this, and so well aware is the Irish farmer of the effects of foreign importation, that his exertions in improving his land, and embarking deeper in tillage in preference to keeping his ground in grass, are entirely governed by the probability of keeping or losing the full benefit of the English market. The value of this market can only be justly estimated by those who have had the opportunity of witnessing the great progress which Ireland has made in the last four years in its general appearance, and in the improvement of the condition of the small farmers, and the lower orders of the people. No country, probably, ever made more rapid strides in so short a time. As there can be no question about the policy of giving a preference to Ireland over foreign countries, and as so great advantages have accidentally arisen from the measures of our enemy, these considerations alone should be sufficient to induce the House to make certain of the continuance of these advantages, by providing against the effect of a renewed commercial intercourse with the continent, in taking away from Ireland the benefit of the English market. There is a further reason for so doing, and one of no light nature, namely, the tendency which the improvement of the wealth and condition of the people of Ireland by the English market has had and will continue to have in attaching them to the English connection. That the existing law should be amended, must be allowed on all sides, for it is not consistent either with the system of a free trade, or that of a restricted one; by it, in point of practice, exportation is prohibited, and importation is free. A free trade would be in every respect preferable to such a system as this is. The committee in forming an opinion in respect to the alterations which were most advisable to be made, conceived that they could adopt no course so safe as that which the experience of more than a century went so far to prove to be a wise one; They therefore recommended to the House to recur to the principles of the law of 1670, for a plan to regulate importation in future. If there had been no alteration in the value of money since that period, they would have recommended the same prices and duties which are to be found in that law, but as a very great change has taken place in its value, they have had recourse to the average prices of corn to assist them in determining what should be the prices to be fixed at this time as the nearest in value to the prices of 1670. The average price of wheat for 20 years to 1670, was 42s. 4d.: this sum, with one third part added to it, makes 56s., being a little more than the price fixed in 1670, for regulating importation. The committee, therefore, in order to find what price should now be taken, have added one third to the average price of wheat for the last 20 years. This average price is 78s. 11d., which, with one third added to it, makes 105s. 2d. Though this has appeared to many persons to be too high a price, if the great change in the value of money which has taken place of late years, was thoroughly examined by them, they would find reason for not persevering in their opinion. No one can say after the experience of last year, during which the price of wheat was on average 125s., that 105s. is a scarcity price. Whereas 53s. which was the price fixed in 1670, was a famine price, as we may collect from the circumstances of the very scarce year of 1696, when the highest price of wheat was 56s. But as it appears to many persons that 105s. is too high a price, the Resolution which will be submitted to the Committee has been formed by adding one-fifth to the average of twenty years instead of one-third, making the price 95s. And even this price will not be the actual protecting price against importation, because it is proposed to impose on a graduated duty beginning at 1s. in place of a prohibitory duty. It is proposed that the duty shall increase 1s. per quarter for each shilling which the quarter of wheat shall be below 95s.; so that 85s. would in point of fact be about the protecting price, when the duty per quarter would be 11s. But this price would again be a more effectual protecting price than at first it would appear to be, because it is further proposed to take the price of corn for regulating the duty on the average of the united kingdom, in place of the present way of taking it on the average of the twelve maritime districts. This would make a difference of 6s. per quarter when the average price of the twelve maritime districts is 100s. It is also proposed that in each successive year, the price at which the duty of 1s. per quarter and upwards shall be paid, shall consist of the average price of the last twenty years, with one-fifth added to it. The object of this regulation is to provide against future fluctuations in the value of money. These regulations are to be applied to each sort of grain. The price at which the duty of 1s. per quarter will be payable on barley, will be 48s. 9d. on oats 32s. 8d. and on rye, peas, and beans, 58s. 9d. The probable operation of these regulations may be known by reference to a table that has been framed on the supposition that the principle of them had been adopted in 1791: From this table it appears that the importation of corn would have been free in all those years in which the harvests were bad, and where a supply of foreign corn was really necessary. These regulations cannot justify any apprehension of their being productive of any advance in the present price of corn, as the present price of wheat in the twelve maritime districts is 115s. per quarter, and therefore must fall 30s. per quarter, that is to 85s. on an average of the united kingdom, before they can produce any efficient interruption to the importation of corn.

If the several other political institutions of this country were carefully investigated, it would be found that many of them contribute very much to prevent capital from being vested in agriculture, and, therefore, that they afford further reasons for adopting the proposed regulations. The whole commercial system of this country is of that character—the Navigation Act—the Colonial Monopolies—every bounty, and protecting and prohibitory duty, each and all of them operate as a constant encouragement to the investing of capital in trade and manufactures in preference to agriculture. The tythe system forms a great impediment in the way of increasing tillage. The borrowing of such immense sums for the public service, by injuring public credit, takes from the landlord and the farmer the means of raising money for the purpose of carrying on improvements, for they cannot overcome difficulties of obtaining money, when the interest of it is very high, in the same way that merchants and manufacturers are able to do; and lastly, the depreciation of money contributes very much to depress agriculture, as nothing forms so great an obstacle to the letting of long leases, as the apprehension that money will become still more depreciated.

With respect to the exportation of corn, it is proposed to make it free at all times. The policy of such an arrangement, is so ably illustrated by Dr. A. Smith, that the best explanation of it which can be given to the House is to be found in his own words. He says, "The trade of the merchant exporter of corn for foreign consumption, certainly does not contribute directly to the plentiful supply of the home market. It does so, however, indirectly. From whatever source this supply may be usually drawn, whether from the home growth or from foreign importation, unless more corn is either usually grown or usually imported into the country, than what is usually consumed in it, the supply of the home market can never be plentiful. But unless the surplus can, in all ordinary cases, be exported, the growers will be careful never to grow more, and the importer never to import more, than what the bare consumption of the home market requires. The prohibition of exportation limits the improvement and cultivation of the country to what the supply of its own inhabitants requires. The freedom of exportation enables it to extend cultivation for the supply of foreign nations."

In addition to the several resolutions which relate to the exportation and importation of corn, it is intended to propose one for regulating the distillery from sugar. Those persons who have usually been the most forward in opposing this measure, have admitted the fairness of the principle, to make use of sugar in the distilleries, wherever the price of corn shall be so high as to indicate the actual necessity of foreign importation.

To the many objections which have already been made to the proposed alterations of the corn laws, it is by no means difficult to give very satisfactory answers.—The Report is said to be deficient in information. In respect to the corn trade and laws of Great Britain, there is an abundance of information contained in the references of it to acts of parliament, and in the papers and accounts that are in the appendix. There is certainly no evidence on these heads. But this was a point not overlooked by the committee, but debated by them, and decided upon, in consideration of the frequent enquiries that have been made of late years, into the corn trade of Great Britain by select committees. The question at issue, is not in reality a question of evidence, but one of general principle to be governed by those facts, which can only be known by the means which the Report supplies. In respect to the corn trade of Ireland, as the subject was quite new to the House, and as so much of the expediency of the plan depends upon the capability of Ireland to grow a sufficiency to supply the demand of Great Britain, the Committee went into evidence upon it, and have fully proved by very competent witnesses, that Ireland is a country capable of growing corn to any imaginable extent.—The petitioners of Glasgow say, that the proposed alteration will raise the prices of corn, and the wages of labour, and in this way injure the poor, and deprive this country of its manufacturing superiority; but the whole of their inferences fall to the ground in consequence of their being founded on the assertion, that we are not able to grow a sufficiency of corn for our own consumption, and, therefore, that we must import foreigncorn.—Several persons who are concerned in the trade of importing corn have been very active and loud in endeavouring to establish an opinion, that this plan will raise the price of the quartern loaf, but their zeal is to be accounted for very easily by their own particular trade being no doubt likely to be very much injured by its success: how far they are accurate in their assertions is also easily to be seen, by comparing the present price of corn with what it must be in order that the plan can at all obstruct foreign importation.

As to the time of bringing the question forward, it is the present price of corn that renders this time peculiarly fit for making the alteration, that is now requir- ed, because as no interruption will be given to the existing course of trade; there will be no just ground for popular alarm and popular clamour. As to the lateness of the session, which some have urged as an objection to the motion, it may be replied, that this subject has been before the House during the whole of it. Notice was given that a committee would be moved for in the first week of February, the committee was appointed in March, it sat six weeks, the report was made the 11th of May, and the resolutions of the committee having been printed in the votes of that day, the country has been fully apprized of the nature of the present proceeding.—If it shall receive the sanction of the House the most salutary consequences may be expected from it. The present great efforts of the farmers of the United Kingdom to extend tillage will be effectually encouraged, the increased supply of corn will not only give us a sufficiency, but a surplus for exportation to our colonies and foreign countries. The condition of the lower orders of the people of Ireland will be rapidly improved, the most certain practicable security against scarcity will be attained, and the prices of corn will be rendered steady, and in the end be in reality lower than ever they yet have been. If steadiness of price shall be alone the result, a most valuable object will be acquired, because it is not a high price which injures the poor man, but a price that fluctuates, for as the wages of labour are regulated by the general average price of corn, in those years in which it is very high, the wages of labour do not rise proportionally to the price, and the pressure of the advance in price falls entirely on the poor. But the most substantial benefit which the public will derive from a wise revision of the corn laws will be, its independence of foreign countries, for if we can once establish an average production of corn sufficient for the average consumption of the people, whenever a harvest may fall short, the deficiency can never be so great, but that we shall be able in all probability to obviate the distress of scarcity by a suitable economy; and even if this resource were to fail, the quantity of corn which might be necessary to be imported would be so small, as to be obtained with a certainty from some part or other of Europe or America.

The hon. baronet then moved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the said Report."^*

^* The following are the Resolutions which were afterwards proposed to the Committee:

Resolved, 1. "That it is expedient that an Act, made in the 44th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intitled, "An Act to regulate the importation and exportation of corn, and the bounties and duties payable thereon;" and also an Act, made in the 45th year of the reign of his present Majesty for explaining and amending the said Act of the 44th year, be repealed; except only so far as the said Act of the 44th year repeals any part of an Act, made in the 31st year of the reign of his present Majesty, intitled, "An Act for the regulating of the importation and the exportation of corn, and the payment of the duty on foreign corn imported, and of the bounty on British corn exported."

2. "That it is expedient, that so much of the said Act of the 31st year of his present Majesty's reign, as regulates the exportation of corn from Great Britain, for victualling and providing any of his Majesty's forces, forts or garrisons, or the exportation of corn to certain places from cerrtain ports in Great Britain, as described in the table marked (C.) in the said Act: and also so much of said Act as prohibits the exportation of corn or bounties thereon, be repealed.

3. "That it is expedient, that so much and such parts of any Act or Acts, passed by the parliament of Ireland, as regulate the exportation or importation of corn, or as grant or allow any duties or bounties thereon, be repealed.

4. "That it is expedient, that the exportation of corn and grain, from any part of the United Kingdom, should be permitted, at all times, without the payment of any duty, and without receiving any bounty whatever.

5. "That it is expedient, that Ireland should be divided into four maritime districts, and four inland districts; and that the prices of corn and grain, with them, should be taken and returned to the receiver of corn returns, in like manner as in England.

6. "That it is expedient, that the duty on the importation of corn, grain, and flour,

into any part of the United Kingdom, should be regulated by the aggregate average price of corn, in the whole of the twelve maritime, districts of England and Wales; the four maritime districts of Scotland, and the four maritime districts of Ireland.

7. "That it is expedient, that the importation of corn and grain, into the United Kingdom, should be permitted, whatever the price thereof may be in any part of the said United Kingdom; subject only to the following duty (that is to say) whenever the average price of wheat, rye, barley, beer or big, oats, peas or beans, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, shall exceed the total amount of the average price of each corn or grain respectively, within Great Britain, for the 20 years ending the 5th day of November then next ensuing, together with a sum equal to one-fifth part of such average price added thereto, then, and in such case, a duty shall be paid on the importation of each such corn or grain respectively into any part of the United Kingdom, at and after the rate of 1s. for every quarter of such corn or grain respectively, and no more; and whenever the average price of any such corn or grain respectively, shall be less than the amount of such average price in Great Britain, such 20 years, with the addition of one-fifth part as aforesaid, by the sum of 1s. or 2s. or any further sum of 1s. then a further increased duty shall be paid on the importation of each such grain respectively, at the rate of 1s. for every quarter so imported in respect of and equal to every shilling by which the price of such grain respectively shall be less than the amount of such 20 years average price, with the addition of one-fifth part as aforesaid.

8. "That corn or grain, the growth or produce of Quebec, or the other British colonies or plantations in North America, may be imported into any part of the United Kingdom, whatever the price of corn or grain may be, without the payment of any duty whatever on the importation of the same.

9. "That it is expedient, that no wheaten flour or meal of wheat, nor any

oatmeal, nor any other meal or flour, nor any corn ground, nor any malt, should be imported into any part of the United Kingdom, from parts beyond the seas, provided always that wheaten flour or meal may at all times be imported into Great Britain.

10. "That it is expedient, that the importation of wheaten flour or meal into that part of the United Kingdom called Great Britain, should be permitted, whatever the price thereof may be in any part of the said United Kingdom, subject only to a duty upon every hundred weight of such flour or meal equal to one third of the amount of duty payable on the quarter of wheat at the time of such importation.

11. "That the duty on the importation of Indian corn and maize, shall be regulated according to the prize of barley—and such Indian corn or maize shall be considered as barley imported from parts beyond the seas.

12. "That whenever it shall happen that the price of wheat on an average of 8 months preceding the 1st day of Sept. in any year, shall have exceeded the price at which foreign grain, imported into any part of the United Kingdom, shall be made liable to a duty not exceeding the sum of 5s. per quarter, then and in such case the distillation of spirits from corn or grain shall be prohibited in Great Britain, until the 1st day of Sept. then next following: and whenever it shall happen that the price of wheat on an average of the eight months preceding the 1st day of Sept. in any year, shall not have exceeded the price, at which foreign wheat, imported into any part of the United Kingdom, shall be made liable to a duty of 5s. per quarter; then and in such case the distillation of spirits from sugar shall be in like manner prohibited until the 1st day of Sept. then next following."

said, that the question was, whether or not they should then go into a committee on the Report? and, for his part, he was opposed to go into it, not because he was averse to going into the question, but because he thought it should be deferred till another session; for the question was of too much importance to be disposed of at such a period of the session; and if he could consent to go into the committee, he should object to the Resolutions of his hon. friend, as he understood them to be totally different to the recommendations of the Select Committee. The noble lord adverted to the Report; he said that it was alleged that the quantity of corn grown was insufficient for the consumption of the country, and it was therefore dependant on foreign countries; it was proposed to render it independent by the Resolutions of his honourable friend; but he must say, that he would prefer partial dependance with low prices, to ab- solute independence and bread at a high price. The high price of grain was considered to be such as to form a ground for parliamentary interference: and yet the Resolutions of his hon. friend would raise the price still higher. The exports from Ireland last year amounted to 2,900,000l. and in former years to 1,700,000l. and yet the gentlemen of Ireland were discontented! He did not know what exports would content them. The export of grain from Ireland had been so great, that the Committee recommended some of the arable land of England to be laid down in grass to provide more butcher's meat; and yet his hon. friend spoke of extending the agriculture of England, for the purpose of growing more corn. In the Report, the Committee recommended that permission should be given to export corn, till it arrived at a very high price. On that point he should say but little; it was quite sufficient to state, that the high price was 125s. per quarter, to influence every man, conversant with the subject, to oppose such a principle. He did not think that the legislature ought to hazard such essential alterations in the existing corn laws, on such slight grounds as those detailed in the Report; particularly as the Committee was composed of a description of persons, who, from their ordinary pursuits and habits, could not be supposed to have the most accurate knowledge of the subject. With respect to the assertion, that the proposed changes would benefit the agricultural interest, a little reflection would prove that this was not the fact. If the price of corn was greatly and permanently raised, it was evident, that, on the expiration of a farmer's lease, his landlord would expect a proportionate increase of rent; and, therefore, it was a mere mockery to make these alterations for the purpose of giving him an advantage for the few years to which his tenure might happen to extend. The principle recommended by the Committee would have the obvious effect of rendering the high price of corn permanent in those countries. It would extend to Scotland, and there was no place where a false step, in legislating on this subject, would be attended with more fatal consequences. The laws respecting corn, in that country, had become almost a dead letter, and the result was, that agriculture had greatly increased. From all these considerations, he felt himself called upon to oppose the motion; and he should therefore move, as an amendment, "That the Report be taken into consideration this day three months."

said, the subject was one of very great importance to the country generally, and demanded the most serious consideration. In giving his vote, he could assure the House be acted from the most disinterested feelings; as, neither within nor without doors, had he entered into any discussion of the question, which might be supposed to bias his view of it. In three instances, which went radically to alter the corn laws, as at present constituted, he entirely disagreed from the principles advocated by the hon. baronet. The first was allowing a premium, without any limit, to the exportation of grain; thus overthrowing a principle, which he believed was originally acted on in the reign of Edward 1, nearly 500 years ago. Surely such a deviation as this ought not to be acceded to, without the most extended examination; and this was prevented by the very late period of the session at which the subject was brought forward. The second point to which he objected was, that, instead of a fixed price, stated by law, at which exportation and importation should be allowed to take place, it was proposed that a system should be introduced, which would occasion a constant fluctuation of price. For it was recommended, that, after the month of January, 1814, the prices should be calculated on the average of the preceding 20 years. The hon. baronet had remarked, as a reason for this, the great increase in the price of wheat in the last 21 years. That such an increase had taken place was undoubted; but a variety of causes had concurred to produce this effect. And, when the hon. baronet recollected, that two of these years were years of scarcity, and that a considerable depreciation had taken place in the value of money, it could not be denied that much of this increase must be attributed to these causes. In the third place, he differed entirely from the hon. baronet, in prohibiting the importation of flour and meal. Grain, being a weighty article, its exportation from our North American colonies did not always answer. The Canadians had, therefore, at a great expence, erected mills for the manufacture of flour; but, by the new system, these would be rendered useless, and instead of benefiting that country, a great and evident injury would be inflicted on it. The hon. baronet had stated, that, previous to the year 1765, this was an exporting country, but that, since that period, it had ceased to be so. This change, however, could not be fairly attributed to the corn laws, but must be considered in connection with a variety of novel circumstances which had since occurred. It was a mistake to suppose that the projected alteration would operate any decrease of the price of grain. It was clear, from all experience, if 95s. were the price at which grain must arrive, before it would be admitted to be imported, it would never fall lower. In 1805, grain was at 67s. per quarter; in 1810 at 69s.: but if the suggestion of the Committee were attended to, the price would never descend. It would have the effect of raising corn from its present rate to 95s. per quarter. He was anxious that a fair protection should be given to the grower; but, let that protection be plainly understood and perfectly discussed. When the price at which importation was admitted, with a very moderate duty, was raised to 66s. per quarter, it could not be forgotten that it never afterwards fell below that sum. And if it were now extended to 95s. no doubt could be entertained, that the same result would follow. As to the propriety of settling the price at 95s. it was a matter of argument. To prove this, the right hon. gentleman stated, that, in the county where he lived, certain surveyors had estimated the value of grain at 80s. He did not mean to say that this was a correct estimate, but it shewed that the price was a matter which admitted of much controversy. It was said that the proposed alteration would benefit the manufacturer. Now, if the manufacturer, in consequence of an increased price of corn, was obliged to give to his workmen an additional rate of wages, it would be necessary for him also to raise the price of his manufactures, and in time of peace this would operate against him. He was aware that this country did not grow corn sufficient for our consumption; but a variety of circumstances might be adduced, which tended to occasion this; the most prominent of which was our increase of population within the few last years. This deficiency would be also in a considerable degree lessened, by the inclosing and tilling of waste lands, a system which was now very prevalent throughout the country. In conclusion, the right hon. gentleman observed, that though he agreed in many of the propositions of the hon. baronet, yet at that late period of the ses- sion, he could not consent to proceed in so important a measure.

observed, that the noble lord who had recently addressed the House, seemed to have decided on the part he would take, in consequence of instructions from his constituents, followed up by conversations out of doors, rather than from any internal conviction of his own mind. A great part of his speech consisted of comments on the evidence given by gentlemen before the Committee, and by no means affected the general principle which the Committee had in view. It was said, indeed, that they had not contemplated any great general principle, but their only object was to serve the landed interest. This he denied; at the same time, it must be admitted, that if the suggestions of the Committee went to benefit the landholders, in a great and extensive sense, it would be a most desirable object for the country at large, and might be made the basis of the most beneficial effects. This was not merely an agricultural question. It was a great commercial subject, deeply interesting to the landed proprietors, to the farmer, and to every class and rank of society. He was in favour of going into the Committee, and thought the measures recommended to the House would be likely to take from the enemy an advantage he at present held over us, and furnish resources which, in the event of our losing our naval superiority, would be of the greatest importance to the country. He wished such measures to be taken as would secure the empire an independent supply, and could not but lament that the eight million given to France, our inveterate enemy, for corn, had not been given to the improvement of Ireland.

was in favour of going into a committee, as the likely means of promoting the incease of agriculture, and enabling us to depend on our own resources for supply, instead of a precarious dependence upon the continent. He was convinced it was impossible for any gentleman to do more good than by employing his time, his talents, and his capital, in the cultivation of the soil. The way to enrich the farmer and to improve the condition of the labourer, was not by raising the prices of corn, but by extending the cultivation of the land. He thought the answers in the Report were in general to the purpose and intelligent, though perhaps not framed with all the accuracy of a special pleader. He had for the last 16 years laid out no inconsiderable capital in the growth of corn, in preference to the cultivation of grass; and from the beneficial effects he had reaped, he only wished he could prevail on other gentlemen to follow his example, for the improvement of their fortunes and the good of their country. As to the high price of corn, which it was said would be the consequence of this measure, it should be remembered that it had been much higher. Formerly this country grew as much corn as was wanted for its consumption. What was the reason why it should not do the same now? The general answer was, that the population was so much increased, and that a great part of the land was turned into pasture; but to these reasons he would reply, that if the population was increased, the capital was also increased; and as to the land being turned into pasture, that would give so much more animal food, and of course reduce the consumption of corn. He should, therefore, vote for going into the committee.

said, the question was how far the corn grown in the country was sufficient for the population, and if it was deficient, what were the best means to procure it from abroad? He was not inclined to agree with his hon. friend who brought forward the motion, and others who went with him, in the extent of price, but he thought it a fair opportunity to come to some decision on the subject, and should therefore vote for the committee.

said, he perfectly agreed with the hon. baronet who brought forward this subject in almost all his arguments and the results drawn from them, yet he thought that at the present late period of the session it would not be right to press the subject. He wished to have the opinions of persons in both countries conversant in the business, and therefore hoped the hon. baronet would agree to defer the committee till another session, when he should have all the assistance in his power to promote the ends he had in view.

said, he thought the late period of the session by no means a sufficient reason for putting off the decision of the House to another session. They had already pledged themselves to come to a final decision on another most important measure, which would, of course, occupy their attention for a considerable time longer; and during that discussion, there would no doubt be many intervals in which they might turn their attention to the present subject, which was also very important. He should, therefore, recommend that the House should make as much progress in it as possible. As to any further information on the subject, he thought it unnecessary; and that it was only calling on parliament to restate its own principles. He thought that as we were circumstanced at present, nothing could protect us against the great inequalities of price; the great remedy for which was to give the agriculturist adequate protection, and that could only be done by the interposition of parliament. He was decidedly of opinion the scale ought to be advanced, and we ought not to be discouraged from going into the question, because we might now enter upon it without any fear of alarming the popular feelings.

agreed in thinking this the best time for taking the question into consideration. It had been said that the trade in grain should be left perfectly free. This would be very well if every thing else was free. Was agriculture a less essential manufacture than that of woollen cloth, or was it less deserving of the protection of the legislature? A noble lord (A. Hamilton) had said to what extent do the Irish gentlemen wish to extend their exportation of grain? The exports from Ireland were indeed great. Admit this. But who had benefited from this? Great Britain. He would say to the manufacturers of Great Britain what nation was their best customer? The imports of Ireland had kept pace with the exports, and 7–8ths of the exports were from Great Britain. The peasantry of Ireland had shared with the landholder in the advantages resulting from an increased tillage.

said, it was well known the price of corn was now very high, and that there were many thousands of people who could hardly purchase bread at all. By going into this committee, the House was going to tell them, by way of consolation, that they could never hope to have bread cheaper; for that henceforth, according to some arguments adduced this evening, it never could, nor ever ought, to be below a certain price. Whatever the opinion of the noble lord might be as to popular feelings, he differed with him on that point, and thought there never was a time in which this subject was likely to excite more popular clamour. He should therefore object to go into the committee, and his great objection was to the particular time.

was against going into the committee, and thought the farmers ought to be satisfied with the high prices they at present received.

said, he was confident the more this subject was examined and the oftener it was discussed, the less danger there would be of any popular disapprobation of it. If the people were really distressed, what could be more proper, more discreet, or more humane, than for the legislature to enquire into it? The hon. alderman had said it was unnecessary to enter into this enquiry till next session, because the farmer must be satisfied with the present prices; but this measure would ensure a greater steadiness of prices, which was highly desirable. The people had for several years past been suffering under a certain feverish apprehension of a scarcity, which had proved almost as great a punishment as the highest prices could possibly be. Whether the average proposed was too high or not, he would not say; that would be a fit consideration for the committee, which had his entire approbation.

was astonished that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should lend his authority to a project like the present. It so happened at present that though we had corn laws in our statute-book, we had, in fact, no corn laws, and that there was the most perfect freedom in the trade of grain. Now, what was the state of the country with respect to agricultural improvement? The fact was that tillage had never increased so much, and that prices had never been before so regular. For this, if reference was necessary, he would refer to the Report itself. With respect to the supply of grain from foreign countries, the evil was admitted to be, not in the supply itself, but in the danger to which it was exposed of being cut off. Now, it so happened, that at a time when it was the policy of an enemy to prevent our supply, and when political circumstances were the most favourable for such a measure, the amount of foreign grain imported into this country had been greater than ever. This Report proved, that in spite of all the regulations of the enemy, whenever this country was in want of foreign grain, it could get it. There were several principles in the Report, with which he agreed. He had no hesitation in agreeing to exportation, and the abolition of a bounty. But the discussion of that night convinced him that these principles were merely thrown out by way of conciliation, and that the main object of the measure was to prevent importation from foreign countries, except when prices should rise to the enormous sums stated in the Report. At present, he contended, the price of corn was high beyond example, and was such as to afford a fair profit both to landlord and tenant. Supposing the measure of his hon. friend, the worthy baronet, to be adopted, then would the increase in the price of grain go on, depending not on the value but on the depreciation of the commodity. The poor lists of the different parishes in the country, he contended, were loaded with persons perfectly able to exist by their labour, were it not for the high artificial price of commodities. It was only by those artificial prices that the poor were prevented from living without being burdensome on the community.

supported the motion, denying that the object of it was, or could be, to raise the prices of corn. He wished to see the country put above the necessity of foreign assistance in so important an article as that of grain. If, in accomplishing this object, the prices should increase, which he thought they would not do, then should they have the satisfaction of knowing that the high prices were given to their own subjects, and not to foreigners. He voted for the committee, therefore, not on the principles imputed to those who should be of that mind by the noble lord on the other side, but from a conviction that in going into such committee the House would best consult the interests of the United Kingdom.

thought, that before the House proceeded to the consideration of the subject, it ought to be made more intelligible to the country at large, and he therefore wished that some explanatory resolution should be previously agreed to. It should also be satisfactorily made out, that the measure was not directed to the exclusive benefit of the agriculture of Ireland, or to that of England, but to the general advantage of the empire.

was of opinion, that this was not the time for the House to enter into the consideration of the measure, nor could he perceive the peculiar object intended by the motion. By entertaining it, much dissatisfaction, without the chance of any essential benefit, might be caused throughout the country.

denied that the object of the measure was to raise the prices of corn. It appeared to him, on the contrary, to tend to their stability, according to the best possible standard which could be furnished from the experience the House had both of the corn laws, of the corn trade, and the difficulties of obtaining foreign supplies of grain.

having replied to the several objections, the House divided.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee.

expressed his objection to the measure, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Pitt and lord Camden to justify the objection. For from this evidence it appeared, that Mr. Palmer's claim to reward was to rest not merely upon the invention he suggested, for the improvement of communication by the post, but upon the performance of certain duties, as comptroller general to the Post-office. These duties, he maintained, Mr. Palmer had violated, and, to prove that violation, the right hon. gentleman read an extract from the letter of Mr. Palmer to his deputy Mr. Bonnor, in which Mr. Palmer, after stating to the latter, that the charges of a Mr. Wilson were quite scandalous, still urges him to procure payment of Wilson's account from lord Walsingham. The right hon. gentleman read another extract of a letter from Mr. Palmer, officially recommending a plan of delay in the delivery of letters in London. From these letters he argued that Mr. Palmer had violated his contract with Mr. Pitt, and forfeited his title to the remuneration which he now sought.

referred to the evidence taken before the former committee upon his father's claim, and also to the decisions of the House respecting it, to shew that nothing fraudulent or dishonourable had ever been attributed or attributable to the claimant. The letters quoted by the right hon. gentleman he did not mean to defend; but he contended that they betrayed no dishonourable purpose, as would appear upon the reading the whole of them. Mr. Palmer had, in fact, been much embarrassed in the execution of his plan, by the hostility of the postmasters- general, and particularly lord Walsingham. To prove this hostility, the hon. officer read marginal notes, made by the noble lord, upon the Report of the Commissioners who some years since investigated and reported in favour of Mr. Palmer's claim. As to the evidence alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, it seemed to him rather extraordinary that in the testimony of Mr. Long, that right hon. gentleman so very minutely detailed, in 1813, those points which he never noticed, or perhaps did not recollect, when delivering his evidence upon the same subject in 1807. One objection to this claim had been applied to its amount; but he appealed to the common candour of the House, whether that amount which arose out of the time the claim had been postponed, could be consistently urged against the justice of the claim itself. Had that claim been acceded to in due time, the amount would not, of course, have so accumulated. Five years had, he said, now elapsed since he entered that House, and at that period he declared that he had scarcely the honour of being acquainted with any member of it; yet when he brought this question under its consideration, a majority of nearly two to one decided in favour of Mr. Palmer's claim, although that claim was opposed by the eloquence of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other distinguished persons. To what then could such a majority, under such circumstances, be attributed, but to the intrinsic justice of the claim itself? It had been, he understood, insinuated that the pressure of this claim was disrespectful to the memory of Mr. Pitt, but the disrespect to that memory was, he was persuaded, evinced rather by the opponents than by the advocates of the claim. For he would ask those advocates whether Mr. Pitt would have pursued the course which they had followed—whether he would have resisted the vote of that House—whether, after that House had ordered a trial by a jury in this case, Mr. Pitt would have directed the crown lawyers to defeat the vote by mere technical objections: whether after that House had addressed the crown to discharge Mr. Palmer's claim, Mr. Pitt would have advised the rejection of that address? an address of the same nature, as that which had produced the payment of Mr. Pitt's own debts. After illustrating the character of Mr. Palmer's claim, which bore a marked difference from perhaps any other claim upon the public, because it imported an application for a comparatively small reward for actual services rendered to the public, both in accommodation and revenue, the honourable officer apologized for having so long trespassed upon the time of the House.

objected to the principle of the Bill as it went to call upon the House, with the misconduct of Mr. Palmer before it, to vote that he had performed his contract.

said, he had ever considered, that in a case like the present, where great services were acknowledged to be rendered to the public, by the talent, the invention and the industry of an individual, it was ill suited to the liberality, nay ill suited to the justice of parliament, to look with scrutinizing eyes for loop-holes or technical objections whereby to evade the full measure of advantage, in the assurance of which the individual had been led to employ himself in the public service. This principle had governed his mind in all his former votes upon this subject: and the more he considered the case, both upon the former testimony and that which had been recently taken, the more he was satisfied that any attempt to connect Mr. Palmer's per-centage with official duties, or with any thing else but the success of the plan, was both illiberal and unjust. He knew it had been presumptuously insinuated that the opinion of the House, as before expressed, had been owing to the influence of personal feeling and kindness, but he could assure the House, that he had voted in favour of this claim before he had the honour of a personal acquaintance with the gallant officer whose feelings were so much interested on the present occasion, and the only effect of his present intimacy with his hon. friend had been to stimulate him to express that approbation, which otherwise he should have been content to express by his vote. The case was not to be considered on the construction of the appointment of Mr. Palmer, but it was considered on the circumstances of the case on which that appointment was founded, and it is most clear, that the basis of the contract was a per centage of 2½ per cent. on the increased revenue. For that per centage Mr. Palmer undertook to commence and to carry into effect his plan. As he proceeded upon it, and as it promised success, Mr. Pitt says himself that he thought that to connect Mr. Palmer with the office by official appoint- ment, would still further benefit the revenue, and therefore gave him official situation both as a reward for his services and a stimulus to future exertion. He developed the plan—he put it in motion for the per centage. Whatever took place grew from this bottom—the public have been in possession of the plan, they have reaped the benefit of it, in the celerity, the security, and general character of the Post-office, the revenue has increased above a million per annum, and it is unfit to deny to Mr. Palmer his personal advantage from a plan from which so much public advantage has accrued. Mr. Freeling's testimony ascribes to Mr. Palmer the whole merit of the Post-office arrangement. Such a testimony from such a public officer, in whose praise one universal voice is raised in the country, will serve to console Mr. Palmer in the midst of all the anxieties and injustice he has been exposed to in the progress of this subject. He did not defend the letters of Mr. Palmer, but he believed they proceeded from no other wish but to disengage himself from the controul of the post-masters, and to put himself his own plan into useful effect. He thought the dismissal from office a sufficient mortification for the offence, without so flagrant a violation of justice, as the withholding from him the pecuniary benefits of his contract.

denied that any tittle of evidence could be produced to shew that Mr. Pitt intended to remunerate Mr. Palmer independently of his official duties. On the contrary the evidence of Mr. Pitt went directly to prove that the percentage was "given with a double view," to use his own words,—that of rewarding the invention, and as an incentive to Mr. Palmer to persevere in bringing his plan to perfection. There was a declaration also in one of Mr. Palmer's letters, which shewed that he himself considered the percentage as dependent upon official duty: "I could," says he, "expose the post-masters most damnably, but three or four thousand a year is not to be trifled with." How could these three or four thousand a-year run the risk of being lost if they arose solely as a reward for producing his plan? Mr. Palmer, however, knew that such was not the case; he knew that his per centage depended upon his performance of certain duties, and it was not till after the increase of the revenue in the Post-office rendered it a desirable and convenient object, that he began to consider his claim as a right. He (Mr. Long) had advised Mr. Pitt to give him 3,000l. a year; and Mr. Palmer had communicated with him repeatedly upon that allowance, but in all his communications he never mentioned his claim of right. He would tell the House why Mr. Pitt turned his reward into salary, and into per centage. It was that Mr. Palmer might have something certain, in case the revenue of the Post-office should keep below that sum at which Mr. Palmer's per centage was to commence.

supported the motion, and related the manner in which Mr. Palmer's case had been prevented from coming before a jury, as alluded to by colonel Palmer. He thought the claim a just one, and that parliament would only consult its own honour and justice in complying with it. He contended that Mr. Palmer had taken the 3,000l. a year under the pressure of necessity. He was far, however, from meaning to defend or justify Mr. Palmer's conduct: but Mr. Palmer's demand had nothing to do with his conduct.

spoke against the Bill, but the House was so impatient for the question, that the hon. member was interrupted by incessant coughing. He concluded by observing, that, as a matter of liberality, parliament might grant a sum; but there certainly existed no right.

spoke against the motion, but said, that in a future stage of the Bill, he should move to insert a sum, less than what was now claimed, as a compensation to Mr. Palmer.

The House then divided—For the motion 76, Against it 28, Majority 48.

The Bill then went through a committee, and an amendment proposed by Mr. Bankes was negatived.

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move an Address to the Prince Regent, praying his Royal Highness to lay before the House any communications that had taken place between this country and Denmark. In the treaty lately concluded with Sweden, its object was set forth to be the defence of the independence of the North, and one of the stipulations it contained went to guarantee to Sweden a large portion of the kingdom of Denmark—the country of Norway. Ministers, it appeared, from an instrument, published by the French government, had proposed to Denmark the cession of Norway to Sweden, and offered her in lieu of it, what was called in the instrument he had alluded to, part of the maritime departments, by which he (Mr. P.) understood Hamburgh, and some of the Hanseatic towns to be meant. He observed also from the accounts published by the French government, that an action had taken place at Hamburgh, in which the Danes took part against the French, and after which it was stated by the French general, that the dead bodies of many Danes were found. From this he thought it clear, that at that time the crown of Denmark was not disposed to fall into the views of France, and might have been induced to take part with England. What had passed between England and Denmark he knew not; but this he knew, that a minister had been sent from Denmark, not for war, but for peace; and it was now known that Denmark stood in a situation opposite to that in which she had lately been seen, and was at present actively engaged on the side of France. What he desired therefore was, that the noble lord would agree to the production of such papers as were necessary to explain the conduct of the government of this country towards Denmark. It was clear that ministers by the late treaty, not only allowed Sweden to take Norway, but bound themselves to co-operate with Sweden in the attempt. This could not but engender increased hostility on the part of Denmark. That such must be the consequence was so clear, that he thought it unnecessary to say any thing more on the subject. He concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to entreat his Royal Highness to direct copies or extracts of all letters or papers which may have passed between his Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and any accredited minister from the crown of Denmark, in the course of the present year to be laid before the House."

thought it was best not to debate the subject. He understood the right hon. gentleman to move for the papers in question, not for the purpose of considering whether the conduct of government had been right or wrong in the late negociations with Denmark, but in order to enable the House to judge of the propriety of the treaty lately concluded with Sweden. He apprehended the papers called for were not at all necessary in this point of view. Nothing that had recently taken place between this country and Denmark, could have prevented the treaty with Sweden, which was signed on the 3d of March. The propriety or impropriety of that treaty was to be decided on by those grounds of policy on which it was concluded, and not by what had subsequently occurred. The right hon. gentleman was certainly at liberty to arraign the policy of that treaty, but the papers he called for could not affect it. He therefore on the grounds, first, that the papers were unnecessary, and secondly, that part of the discussions which had taken place he had an objection to produce, must decline concurring with the motion.

observed, his motion was not confined to papers which had passed between the government of this country and that of Denmark since the 3d of March, but extended to all that had passed in the present year. He was not satisfied with the reasons given by the noble lord for not producing the papers. He could not conceive that Sweden, Denmark, or Russia, could be injured by such a disclosure, and he therefore called for them, as their production would be innocent, and was necessary for the discussion of the treaty concluded with Sweden.

remarked, that the right hon. gentleman had said he could not conceive on what grounds the papers were withheld. He was sure the right hon. gentleman must feel that he (lord C.) could not explain himself on this subject, without making the disclosure he was anxious to avoid. He further observed, that had the late negociation broke off on no other point than that relating to Norway, on that he should have been ready to defend the conduct of government.

said, if the noble lord meant to argue that, it was sufficient.

did not mean to argue it to the extent which the right hon. gentleman might suppose. Other considerations were connected with it.

wished to know the date of the first communication with Denmark.

stated the first formal communication to have been made on the 23d of February. Had the proposition then received been admissible instead of being, as it was, wholly inadmissible, ministers would have been placed in a situation very different from that in which they had stood.

The question was then put and negatived.