said, that it appeared by the paper communicated relative to the arrest of certain Spanish subjects who had taken refuge in Gibraltar, that the object of the motion on the subject, was mistaken. It was expected that by the production of all correspondence carried on by sir James Duff with lord Bathurst and the constituted authorities of Gibraltar, a full and fair explanation would be given of his conduct in preventing those unhappy and virtuous victims of a bad government from effecting their escape by means of the British convoy. Why did Sir James Duff summon the captains of the ships who composed the convoy, and compel them to declare whether any, and what Spaniards they had on board? This was a specific question, which it was expected should be fully answered. This subject involved points so interesting to the British character, and to humanity, that the most satisfactory explanation of it should be given to the country. He could not help remarking, also, that the correspondence which appeared to have passed between Mr. Stedman and sir James Duff, was by no means creditable to the former, who seemed to exult in the opportunity which he had of obliging the government of Cadiz, by giving up the unfortunate individuals in question. He was anxious to know, likewise, whether any inquiries had been made relative to the allegations of Mr. Puigblanc., in which he so distinctly denied the statements made by general Smith, as to the manner in which he entered the garrison of Gibraltar. The thing was altogether so atrocious, and so abominable, that he hoped, although no specific motion should be made, it would be sifted to the bottom, and that no loop-hole, or means for evasion, would be left either to general Smith, sir James Duff, or Mr. Stedman, in their disgraceful combination to accomplish so unworthy a purpose. With respect to another of those individuals, surrendered by general Smith, he meant Correa, he had been informed that he was an officer of distinguished gallantry in the Spanish army, that he had fought bravely in defense of Ferdinand 7, that he had two sons, who were at this very moment prisoners in France, one of whom had been wounded eleven, and the other seven times, in the cause of that same Ferdinand. [Hear, hear!] And what was his offence? His sole crime was that he had written a most temperate letter, recommending the adoption of some of the regulations promulgated by the Cortes. For that crime, and that alone, he was brought to trial and convicted: and let general Smith, and all who co-operated with him in the odious transaction, know, if the knowledge could possibly give them pleasure or comfort, that that Correa had been sentenced to ten years hard labour in the gallies at Ceuta, where he now was, not expiating any offence, but a victim to the jealous tyranny of the Spanish government. [Hear, hear!] He left those who were instrumental in heaping such misery upon the unfortunate individual to enjoy what tranquility they could after their knowledge of the melancholy consequences of their interference. He hoped sir James Duff, who thought he had acted with so much zeal for the honour and interest of the British government in falsifying his own passports, would be able to justify himself, though he could hardly conceive any circumstances that could constitute a justification; and he hoped, also, that general Smith would be able to reconcile the striking and serious contradiction that now appeared in his own account, and that of Mr. Puigblanc as to the manner in which the latter entered the garrison of Gibraltar.

said, he was ignorant whether it was or was not the intention of any gentleman to make a specific motion on this subject; but he thought it was far more desirable, and far more regular, to submit such a motion, than to make a vindictive and declamatory speech, not supported by any authority. It was true, that general Smith might be called on to explain his conduct; but he knew no mode by which the assertions of a foreign gentleman, who thought proper to make an appeal to the public, could be brought under their consideration. Nor did he think it right, that the character and conduct of individuals should be attacked on mere newspaper authority.

said, that his authority for making the speech he had done, which the right hon. gentleman had characterized as vindictive declamation, was to be found in the papers laid on the table of the House. With respect to Mr. Puigblanc whom the right hon. gentleman seemed to think he had not seen, it was very true, when last he mentioned the subject, that such was the fact. But, since that period he had had an interview with that gentleman, and he had stated, in terms the most unequivocal—terms that left no doubt on his mind as to the truth of his assertions—that the allegations contained in his letter were strictly true. That gentleman was ready to appear at the bar of the House. He was willing to attend at the office of the noble lord, and to substantiate every statement he had made. The right hon. gentleman thought it would be better if a specific motion were made on these papers; and perhaps it might be so. He had departed from the promise given on a former evening by a gentleman connected with a minor department, who had agreed that the truth of the statement made by Mr. Puigblanc should be investigated; and, as he seemed to think, that the honour of the country was so little implicated in this affair, as to render it unnecessary to have it cleared up, he (Mr. Whitbread) would, at no distant period, move that those papers should be taken into consideration. In that event, he was sure, the right hon. gentleman, to whom an opportunity would be given to declare his sentiments, would find it impossible to screen the individuals concerned from the just indignation of the House.

observed, that, in the months of July and September last, two sums, of 100,000l. each, had been granted by this country to the Spanish government. He wished to know for what purpose they were paid? Was it in the nature of a boon to the royal virtues of the Spanish Monarch? Was it to procure some petty commercial advantage? or was it, as he believed it to be, for the purpose of fitting out the expedition to the New World?

said, he had already had more than one occasion to state to the House, that this money had been paid in consequence of a regular stipulation with the Spanish government. It was necessary, after the conclusion of peace that the Spanish troops should be afforded the means of returning to the different districts to which they belonged. It was on this account that the two sums alluded to were granted.

observed, that an allowance of 3,400 dollars had been recently made to this officer, who was now in the Spanish service. He should be glad to be informed, whether the Mr. Downie, who formerly went out to South America with general Miranda, for the purpose of revolutionizing the people, who returned to this country, and was employed in the commissariat department—was the same individual who was now about to embark under general Murillo. If so, he was going out to subdue those very South Americans, whom he endeavoured, a few years ago, to spirit up to rebellion? He should also like to know, whether, while we abstained from giving any assistance to those South Americans, we were justified in affording aid to Ferdinand to subdue them?

said, that sir James Downie had formerly held a commission in the British service, from which he passed into that of Spain. Whether he was now about to embark for South America, he could not say.

demanded whether he was now, being in the Spanish service, receiving pay or allowances from this government? He was, it appeared, so lately as the 26th of July last.

said, the question of the right hon. baronet would be answered in a few days, when the return to the motion of a noble lord, for an account of all British officers, in the Spanish service, who received pay or allowance from this government, was made to the House.

moved the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the state of the Corn Laws. The several Reports which were made to this House in the two last sessions of parliament relative to the corn trade; and also the Reports from the committee of the House of Lords, on the same subject, which, upon-the 23d day of November last, were communicated by their lordships to this House, were ordered to be referred to the said committee. On the question, that the Sneaker do leave the chair,

rose, for the purpose of saying a few words on the order of their proceeding, as the matter before the House stood in point of time. Last session he argued against the consideration of the subject, on account of the question being brought forward prematurely. He was still of the same opinion, with respect to the discussion of last year; and he thought they entered on it now, under circumstances far more favourable. Indeed, the time that had been gained had wrought very important effects. His reason for rising was merely this. It was clearly understood, a few days ago, that certain measures of finance, to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have preceded the consideration of this question. This appeared to him, in every point of view, to be perfectly proper. He thought that the House and the country should be put in possession of the right hon. gentleman's financial plan, before the subject of the Corn Laws was touched upon. If the ques- tion merely were, whether the corn laws should, at the present moment, be made a subject of consideration, he should have little objection to the proposition. But he believed they had been told by the right hon. gentleman, that it was intended, in the committee, to propose a certain price, at which when the quarter of corn arrived, it would be lawful, and not before, to resort to importation. Now, it must appear to every person who had at all considered the subject, that the settling of this question depended, in a very great degree, on the amount and nature of the taxes to be imposed. Without knowing, accurately, the state of taxation, it would be impossible for the House to decide, whether the importing price should be 65s. 75s. 80s. or 85s. For instance, they should be given to understand, decidedly, whether the property tax were to be renewed or not? Because it was morally impossible for them to know what price should be affixed, before importation was allowed, unless the landholder was informed whether he would be called on hereafter to pay that tax or not. He should also be glad to learn, whether certain other taxes on agriculture, particularly the tax on husbandry horses, were to be continued? Because the continuation or abolition of those taxes would make such an alteration in the cultivation of the land, and the consequent growth of corn, as would render a material difference necessary in the price at which importation would be permitted. It might be said, that the right hon. gentleman had given an assurance that the property tax would not be imposed again. He should like to hear that assurance. He should be extremely well pleased to be certified of the fact; for he looked upon that tax as an engine of oppression and a badge of slavery. The right hon. gentleman might smile when he made use of those expressions; but he thought the inquisitorial dominion exercised by that tax, as bordering upon servitude. At the same time, he was ready to admit, that the gentlemen opposite had mitigated its effects, in a way extremely honourable to them. If it had been otherwise collected, it would have been ten times more oppressive. Now, the right hon. gentleman had only stated, that the property tax would not be renewed, provided his financial propositions were acceded to. It was, therefore, possible, as this condition was made the foundation of its abolition, that the tax might not be repealed. In this state of uncertainty, he should like to know, whether it was possible for them to fix a limit to the importation of corn? If a satisfactory answer were given to the questions he had asked, which was not very likely, the House might proceed; otherwise he thought they could not, with any degree of propriety.

said, it would have been better if the hon. member had waited till he was apprised of the order in which it was intended to bring the two questions he had referred to before the House. He would then have seen that the course meant to be adopted, could not be objected to. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) understood, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Robinson) would propose, in the committee, certain resolutions for altering the corn laws; but not so as to bind the House. These resolutions would then be reported, preparatory to their being printed, after which they would be re-committed to a committee of the whole House, in the course of the ensuing week. The consequence of this procedure would be, that as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have the honour of submitting to the House on Monday next, the proposition of which he had given notice, the House would be enabled to go into the consideration of his right hon. friend's resolutions, with a full view of what he had proposed, and also with a pretty accurate estimate of the general feeling, with respect to the intended alteration in the corn laws. With respect to the property tax, if the House agreed to the plan he should submit to them, he did not mean again to introduce it. Therefore, for the purposes of debate, it might safely be assumed, by any gentleman, that this tax would be repealed. Certainly no advantage would be taken, at a future period, of an argument founded on this assumption.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman had explained as satisfactorily on a former evening, every word he had uttered would have been unnecessary.

The Speaker then left the chair. Upon which,

immediately rose. He commenced by adverting to the course of proceeding which he had adopted; and observed, that the only object he had in view, was to state to the committee the general principles on which he conceived it would be expedient for the House finally to resolve, and the nature of the resolutions which it was his intention to submit to them. He believed the forms of the House would require, that those resolutions should be printed, which it was always his desire that they should be. The regular mode of proceeding was that unless the House declined entertaining the propositions at all, they should in the first instance be agreed to, and reported immediately. After that, he should move that they be printed, with the intention of referring them to the House again. He was sorry that his absence, on a former evening, had prevented him from stating this. The question was asked, at a late hour, when he had left the House, and he regretted that that circumstance had given rise to any misapprehension. The House would perceive, from this exposition that it was not meant to take any course inconsistent with full and fair discussion. If the length of time which had elapsed since this subject was first introduced to the House, had been accompanied by the great disadvantage of its having now fallen to his lot to renew the discussion on this occasion—it had, at least, been attended with one advantage, which had been properly alluded to by the hon. gentleman who had just spoken; it was attended by this great, this inestimable advantage, to a question of this description, that it afforded an opportunity for a full, complete, and satisfactory investigation; an investigation never likely to do mischief; and, in this instance, productive of general good. It enabled gentlemen of all opinions, whether directly opposed, or only exhibiting shades of difference—whether disagreeing on principle or degree—to come to the discussion of the subject with minds better informed, and more decidedly made up; and it also enabled them to supply, from their own knowledge and information, all those deficiencies which might be observable in his statement.

He had never disguised from himself, and he was not at all ashamed to confess it, the extreme difficulty, as well as the extreme importance, of this question. He never had disguised from himself that it was a choice of difficulties. The committee were not called to enter on a plain path; there was, in fact, a certain evil to be apprehended, either from adopting or rejecting the principles he was about to submit to the committee; and therefore, the question was one of peculiar difficulty. He could not however but feel, that the prejudices on this subject had, from farther inquiry, been very much removed. He could not certainly flatter himself that they were entirely removed; for there were many thousand persons in this country who judged, and it was no reproach to them, rather from their feelings, than from reasoning or reflection. He knew that their opinions were not changed, nor likely to be changed; but, he believed, that from amongst many other persons, who opposed an alteration in the corn laws, the objections they originally entertained were very much removed. But, above all, he was happy to see, that the misrepresentations, for so he thought they were, with respect to the motives and objects of those who supported this measure and with reference to the effects which it was likely to produce, were done away with. There did not now exist in the public mind, the feeling by which it was before influenced. It was not now supposed that the object sought to be accomplished by the alteration of the corn laws was the mean, and base, and paltry one of getting, for a particular class of society, a certain profit, at the expense of the rest. "For my own part," said Mr. Robinson, "I declare to God, if I thought this was the motive which actuated any individual who supported the alteration; and, above all, if I conceived that such would be the effect of the measure, no consideration on earth could tempt me to bring it forward." It was, as he had before observed, a question of great difficulty; and the only motive that ought to guide the House, and by which alone he was himself guided, was to do good to all parties. He believed that the course he was about to call on the House to adopt, was not calculated to benefit only a part—but, as far as his judgment went, would lead to the general benefit of all.

In looking to the principles which should guide their decision, the House ought to recollect, that they were not now in the situation of arguing, for the first time, whether they should act on the principle of restriction or not. For not only on the subject of corn, but on all great branches of trade in this country, they had, from time immemorial, proceeded on a system of restriction. And therefore, he contended, they were not now placed in a situation of discussing first principles. They were not now, for the first time, to inquire, whether they were to act on this principle or not. The system had been acted on for a long period, and we could not depart from it without encountering a frightful revulsion, which it would be dreadful to combat. It was not, therefore, a question between restriction and non-restriction—but how they were to apply principles that had been long called into action, to the existing circumstances of the country. This was the only ground on which he would now recommend the measure he was about to submit to their consideration.

Many of those persons who objected to a restricted system with reference to corn, did not reflect on this circumstance; that they were flourishing, and realising immense wealth, in their own profession, by the adoption of a similar principle. This remark applied particularly to one branch of our national manufactures, which depended, in an especial degree, on the supply of the raw material to be obtained in this country. He alluded to the woolen manufacture. It was known to every person, that wool was not permitted to be exported, even in the smallest quantity, from this country. Here, the right hon. gentleman begged that he might not be misunderstood. He did not advance, as an argument, what had fallen from him on the subject of the woolen trade. He did not mean to say, that because one set of people were supported by a particular principle, that another set should be assisted in a similar way. That would not be a fair or generous mode of considering the question. But it was a proper remark, when applied to those who were interested in the subject, and who were guided by feeling, and not by reason.

The effect of this system of restriction, whether from the operation of the principle, or from the situation of the country during the last twenty years, had occasioned a most extraordinary increase in the agriculture of this kingdom. An increase which had inevitably from the very nature of the thing been accompanied by an increase of charge to those who purchased and consumed. Because it was well known, that those parts of the country which were so fruitful as not to require a great deal of cultivation, when compared with the population, could only provide sustenance to a very limited extent. And in proportion as that population increased, and the number of manufacturing establishments became extended; in the same proportion did, the call for agricultural products increase. But whence could the supply come from? It could only come from that species of land which could not be cultivated without very considerable expense. It was true, we gained produce; but that produce must necessarily be sold at a dear rate. This appeared to him to be the situation in which they must always remain, unless they had, what he thought they never could have (and on that impossibility he founded the present measure)—an unlimited supply of foreign corn, to make up for those deficiencies, which, if the poorer land were thrown out of cultivation, must certainly be created. In such a state of things he was convinced, that this country would always be afflicted with want and scarcity. This country, he was convinced, under such circumstances would be generally in a state of want.-For a time there might be abundance, but, in the long run, we should be reduced to a state of very great want and distress. In the first place, suppose that, relying on the importations of foreign corn—and paying for it, for a considerable length of time, at a lower rate, as we might do—suppose the consequence of this to be, that our own produce was diminished. Suppose in this situation of things, a scarcity occurred abroad and at home—in that case, we could not get foreign corn—and thus we should have to contend with a double deficiency. Therefore, he was of opinion, on the whole, not only that our security would be greater, but even that the price of corn might, in the end, be cheaper, by home cultivation, than by depending on foreign countries. There were a thousand circumstances, which gentlemen might easily conceive, to affect the supply, of foreign corn. A state of war might affect it. The whole supply from abroad, in such a state of things, would not be enough to feed the people. They would, therefore, obtain little benefit from such a system, while they were almost certain of being afflicted with an overwhelming evil.

But it was not in a time of war alone, that the foreign supply might be prevented; in a period of peace, regulations might be adopted that would operate against that supply. Let gentlemen look to France. No country in the world was more jealous on this point, than she was. They had prohibited the export of grain, under the payment of a duty, which, though it might appear high there, was certainly considered cheap here. But it might be raised indefinitely—and what were we then to do with our increasing population? The adherence to a foreign supply would, in such an event, be fatal to the agricultural interest—and with it the manufacturing interest must fall! He would call upon gentlemen to turn their attention to Ireland. The population of that country would probably be found greater than was supposed; and it was decidedly agricultural. They possessed no capital to invest in manufactures. That country grew more than it could consume. Even if the inhabitants consumed the same species of food which was made use of in England, still he believed the country produced more than enough for their support. The Irish did not, however, consume the produce of their soil. They reared it up for sale. And, if we did not purchase it, what would become of them? What were they to do, if they were driven from the home market by an unrestricted importation of grain from abroad? Where was their produce to go to? It could evidently find no room in other countries, for the French corn might be sent to any other markets, as well as to ours and it was not necessary for him to dwell on the consequences which must naturally result to Ireland, when thus circumstanced.

Now, they might be told, that, on the score of humanity, they ought not to entertain a measure which might raise the price of grain in England. He should like to know, how this question of humanity applied, with reference to Ireland. He did not adduce this as an argument; but, if the plea of humanity was introduced, he contended that it was as applicable to the one side as to the other—that it was as powerful, with reference to Ire land as to England. He was not aware that it was necessary for him to argue this question of principle any farther. He felt that he was addressing an audience perfectly capable of appreciating the force of his argument, if it had any; and therefore, he would not fatigue the committee by going farther into it. The general result of his reasoning was, in the first place, that it was quite impossible for us safely to rely on a foreign import. If they did, the necessary effect would be a diminution of our own produce, which would become more and more extensive every year, and consequently call for a greater annual supply from foreign countries—a supply which must progressively increase as the agriculture, of the kingdom became less encouraged; and that, when the fatal moment arrived, the system of foreign supply would prove completely illusory. The effect would be exactly what he had before stated—extraordinary misery and confusion—and, in every respect, the decided reverse of what was expected.

The next point to be considered was, the extent to which protection should be given. That was the point on which, undoubtedly, a difference of opinion was most likely to prevail. Some gentlemen would be for going considerably higher than others. Many thought the prohibition ought to be carried to a price considerably above that, without he obtained which, it was conceived the agriculturist could not cultivate. Others would wish that it should be placed much lower; and contend that, because a particular species and degree of burthen was likely to be removed, therefore, the protecting price ought to be much reduced. Now, he would be inclined to agree to the first of these propositions, if the necessary effect of it would not be to bring up the price of corn to the highest possible rate, within the limits of the sum at which importation should commence. This certainly might be the case at the first moment—but, he believed, the ultimate result would not be so. He thought the final effect of the system would be, to give such a powerful support to our own agriculture, as would greatly increase the general produce of the country. It would excite a strong competition between the different parts of England, and between England and Ireland; so that the growth of corn, if Providence blessed us with favourable seasons, would be sufficiently large to afford an ample supply for the people of this country, and would enable them to be fed at a much cheaper rate, in the long run, than could be effected by the adoption of any other system. He could not conceive why it should be supposed, that such a measure must certainly keep up the price of grain as high as it could go, without coming exactly to that sum, at which importation would be allowed. The price he meant, therefore, to propose to the committee, was 80s. for wheat—the proportion for other kinds of grain, to remain exactly as they were at present.

He would now proceed to state shortly to the committee, the nature of the resolutions, he felt it his duty to submit. First in conformity with the recommendation of the Report of last year, he would propose, that at all times, foreign corn, meal, and flour, should be allowed to be imported and warehoused, in the United Kingdom—with the exception of flour into Ireland; for, by a particular law, now in being, such an importation was prohibited. But, with respect to England, corn, meal, and flour, might be imported and warehoused, free of duty; and also, at any time, might be allowed to be exported likewise, free of duty. He should next propose, that the average price should continue to be calculated on the same principle as at present; because it was, practically, the least inconvenient mode. There certainly might be some objections to it; but he never heard of any method of making the calculation more accurately. He should say that importation for consumption should be prohibited altogether, until wheat rose to 80s. the quarter; and other kinds of grain in the same proportion as at present. But when it rose above the sum he had specified, that it might be imported perfectly free, without the payment of any duty whatever. With respect to our North American colonies, he should propose to adopt the same principle. Only there he would fix the price at 67s.; which, by an easy calculation, would be found to bear the same proportion to 80s. as 53s., there, at present, bore to our own price of 63s. He would also apply to those colonies, the same principle of allowing importation for warehousing, when corn was under the maximum price; but it should not be permitted for home consumption, till the price of corn arrived at 67s. and then importation, as in this country, might take place free from duty. The committee would observe that the general outline of the resolutions, now about to be proposed, did not involve any complicated matter, but merely related to these two points; first, whether the general principle was such an one as it would be prudent to adopt; and, second, whether the price he had stated was that most likely to produce the desired effect; and in the present stage of the proceeding, he requested that it might be distinctly understood that no decision of this night relating to the acceptance of his resolutions should be esteemed a definitive vote, which would pledge any individual in regard to his ultimate opinion. He hoped, therefore, that he should be pardoned by the committee for not entering into a more extensive maze of detail which might perhaps rather embarrass the subject than afford any additional illustration. He firmly believed the measure to be conducive to universal benefit, and would, therefore, conclude by moving his resolutions.

The Chairman was then proceeding to read the first Resolution, when

again rose, and begged leave to inform the committee that he did not intend to alter the mode of taking the averages of the different periods, but that of the manner in which they should apply. He observed that there existed an objection to the system of partial importation—that if it were permitted, the markets may be overstocked for three or six months, and again suffer a proportional depression. The law at present allowed importation for the space of three months. If this were to continue, an enormous glut at one period would be followed by a total want at another, and an excessive variation in price would be the consequence. He would, therefore, limit the time of unrestricted importation to six weeks from all the ports between the Garonne and the Eyder, including most part of France, Flanders, and Germany; and if at the expiration of that time corn fell below 80s. all importation should immediately be stopped; but he would not alter the original time with respect to the ports of the Baltic; because their distance would prevent the possibility of speculation.

1. Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that any sort of foreign corn, meal, or flour, which may by law be imported into the United Kingdom, shall at all times be allowed to be brought to the United Kingdom, and to be warehoused there, without payment of any duty whatever.

2. "That such corn, meal, and flour, so warehoused, may at all times be taken out of the warehouse, and be exported without payment of any duty whatever.

3. "That such corn, meal, or flour, so warehoused, may be taken out of the warehouse, and be entered for home consumption in the United Kingdom without payment of any duty whatever, whenever foreign corn, meal, or flour, of the same sort, shall by law be admissible into the United Kingdom for home consumption.

4. "That such foreign corn, meal, or flour, shall be permitted to be imported into the United Kingdom, for home consumption, without payment of any duty, whenever the average prices of the several sorts of British corn, made up and published in the manner now by law required, shall be at or above the prices hereafter specified, viz.

But that, whenever the average prices of British corn shall, respectively, be below the prices above stated, no foreign corn, or meal, or flour, made from any of the respective sorts of foreign corn above enumerated, shall be allowed to be imported or taken out of warehouse for home consumption, nor shall any foreign flour be at any time importable into Ireland.

5. "That the average prices of the several sorts of British corn, by which the importation of foreign corn, meal, or flour, into the United Kingdom is to be regulated and governed, shall continue to be made up and published in the manner now required by law; but that, if it shall hereafter at any time appear that the average prices of British corn, in the six weeks immediately succeeding the 15th February, 15th May, 15th August, and 15th November in each year, shall have fallen below the prices at which foreign corn, meal, or flour, are by law allowed to be imported for home consumption, no such foreign corn, meal, or flour, shall be allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom, for home consumption, from any place between the rivers Eyder and Caronne, both inclusive, until a new average shall be made up and published in the London Gazette, for regulating the importation into the United Kingdom for the succeeding quarter.

6. "That such corn, meal, or flour, being the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, as may now by law be imported into the United Kingdom, may hereafter be imported for home consumption without payment of any duty whenever the average prices of British corn, made up and published as by law required, shall be at or above the prices hereafter specified, viz.

But that, whenever the prices of British corn respectively shall be below the prices above specified, corn or meal or flour made from any of the respective sorts of corn above enumerated, the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, shall no longer be allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom for home consumption.

7. "That such corn, meal, or flour, the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, as may now by law be imported into the United Kingdom, shall at all times be permitted to be brought there and warehoused without payment of any duty whatever.

8. "That such corn, meal, or flour, so warehoused, may at all times be taken out of the warehouse and exported without payment of any duty whatever.

9. "That such corn, meal, or flour, so warehoused, may be taken out of warehouse, and entered for home consumption in the United Kingdom, whenever corn, meal,. or flour, of the like description, imported direct from any such colony or plantation, shall be admissible for home consumption, but not otherwise."

The first Resolution having been read by the Chairman of the committee,

professed himself equally inclined either to proceed with, or defer the discussion, as might be most agreeable to the wishes of the House. Several members calling out "go on," he began by stating his entire concurrence in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman who had moved the resolutions, that this was not a question on which the interests of the commercial and agricultural classes were at variance, but one in which those interests, when fairly and liberally considered, would be found to accord: for no resolution upon it calculated to promote the general prosperity of the country could be adopted without materially benefiting both classes. But if this were not the case, if the question were one in which the interests of two or more descriptions of our fellow subjects were opposed; he should say that it was the duty of parliament not to legislate for the advantage of one class in contradistinction to, or at the expense of another, but to legislate for the benefit of the whole community. Looking at the question under the influence of this principle, he could not help feeling and expressing some surprise at the occasion of their present deliberations. What was the object of their deliberations? To provide a remedy for the low price of corn. That which all ages and countries had considered as a great national benefit was now discovered to be a great evil, against which we were impe- riously called to legislate in self-defence. The real object of the Resolutions, however disguised and disavowed, was to raise the price of corn. [Here Mr. Robinson expressed his dissent.] Mr. Philips proceeded to say, that this not only was their object, but if that object were not attained, the advocates of the resolutions would regard them as nugatory. The right hon. gentleman must at least allow that their object was to raise the present price of grain; but he contended that moderation and uniformity of price would be their ultimate effect. It did seem somewhat inconsistent, on the part of the right hon. gentleman, to tell the House that the effectual way to lower price was to acquiesce in a measure expressly intended to raise it. But how are this moderation and uniformity of price to be produced? by contracting the market of supply—thus, while in all other instances moderation and uniformity of price are found to be in proportion to the extent of the market of supply, in the instance of corn they are to be in proportion to the limitation of it: and in a commodity peculiarly liable to be affected by the variations of seasons, moderation and uniformity of price, and abundance, are to be attained by preventing importations from foreign countries correcting the effect of the varieties of climate, and of a scanty harvest in our own. To him it appeared that no measure could be better calculated to produce directly opposite consequences.

The right hon. gentleman had referred to Ireland as a part of the empire peculiarly requiring the aid of legislative interference. But what country has such advantages as Ireland for maintaining in the British market successful competition with the foreign importer? Rich in the fertility of her soil; growing, as has been truly said, more corn than is necessary for her own consumption; her price of labour low; and her geographical situation peculiarly favourable to the transport of her superabundant produce. Yet though Ireland has peculiar advantages over England in the culture of grain, the right hon. gentleman has told the House truly, that England as well as Ireland has derived the greatest benefit from the free trade in corn subsisting between the two countries. Upon what principle, then, is it to be contended, that the approximation to a freedom of trade in grain with other countries is to produce in the empire generally an effect directly the reverse of that which England has experienced from the actual establishment of freedom of trade with Ireland? It had been said by the right hon. gentleman, that our commerce had grown in consequence of, or at least under a system excluding import and foreign competition, that administered to it the same protection which it was proposed to extend to agriculture. On the effect of these exclusive privileges his opinion differed materially from what he supposed to be that of the right hon. gentleman. Where they had occasioned the establishment of manufactures which would not have been created without them, these privileges had operated to the public injury. They had misdirected capital to trades, in which, so far from being able to rival other countries, we were, and must always remain naturally inferior to them. They had compelled us to buy fabrics of worse quality and at a higher price from our own manufacturers, which we might have had of better quality and at a lower price from foreigners, who in return would have received from us, with a material increase of our commercial wealth, those fabrics in which we have the means of surpassing them. Instead of agreeing with the right hon. gentleman that our commerce had flourished in consequence of these exclusive protections, he (Mr. P.) thought it more correct to say, that it had flourished in spite of them. Where they had operated they had done mischief; but, luckily for the country, they had in general been inoperative. This was proved by the fact, that our manufacturers were able to maintain a successful competition with their rivals in foreign markets, notwithstanding the charge of inland carriage, freight, insurance and other expenses to which their fabrics were liable. He was persuaded that, generally speaking, this country was cheaper and better supplied with manufactured goods than any other country in the world, making due allowance for those cases where a direct tax is imposed. And here he wished the committee to observe the inconvenience to which the adoption of a mistaken principle might expose us. It had led us to form manufactures which ought never to have been established here, the very existence of which just reasoning sheaved us must have been disadvantageous I to the country. But the manufactures having been once established, capitals engaged in them, and many inhabitants of the country become dependant on them for subsistence, they could not be abandoned without great mischief. Having acted on a bad principle we could not recede from it, but must still go on even after we were convinced of our mistake. It was because he thought the principle a bad one that he was desirous to guard against any farther application of it.

He was somewhat surprised that the right hon. gentleman had made no remarks whatever on the relation between the price of provisions, and that of labour; a question intimately connected with the present discussion, and one upon which much had been said by some of the witnesses examined before the committee of the Lords. According to the reasoning of these witnesses, if there be any relation between the price of provisions and that of labour, it is a relation of inverse proportion. He was aware that this opinion was expressly disclaimed by a noble lord (Lauderdale) who had appeared before the committee; but the opinion, Mr. Philips contended, was the necessary result of his reasoning. [Here the hon. gentleman read a part of lord Lauderdale's evidence in confirmation of this observation.] He then proceeded to say, that admitting for the sake of argument the noble lord's reasoning, it was necessary to consider how it affected the present question. The committee are invited to adopt measures intended expressly to raise the present price of corn, and calculated in his judgment to advance it permanently. This is recommended by the very persons whose reasoning leads us to the conclusion, that to advance the price of provisions is the most effectual way to lower the price of labour. What is this but to urge us to raise the landlord, by depressing the labourer; to increase the wealth of the rich, and the poverty of the poor? If the reasoning of the noble lord, and of those who agree with him, be just, it is proposed to the committee to enter upon a course which may lead us, step by step, to prove experimentally what is the minimum of comfort, and food consistent with the subsistence of the maximum of our population. Mr. Philips wished the committee to understand, that he was not imputing to the noble lord, on whose evidence he was commenting, or to any other gentleman who agreed with him in opinion, that these consequences were either intended or contemplated by them. He was aware that no person was less capable of intending such consequences than that noble lord, but in remarking upon his evidence it was necessary to consider what his reasoning necessarily led to: and he defied any man to show that the inference which he had just deduced was not its unavoidable result.

In considering the relation between the price of provisions and of labour, Mr. Philips observed, that it was necessary to distinguish the countries and the trades from which examples were taken. In a new country where the value of land is extremely low, and agriculture rapidly progressive, in a new and thriving manufacture, the price of labour may be so high in proportion to that of the necessaries of life as to be little affected by their fluctuations. Whatever may be their price, the wages of the labourer will be more than sufficient for his comfortable subsistence. In such a country as he had described, the price of labour, as in America, might be permanently high, while that of provisions was permanently low. But this state of things cannot exist in old manufactures, such as those generally established in this country, where competition has reduced profits, and that reduction of profit has brought the wages of the labourer to a level with his subsistence in tolerable comfort. In such manufactures if you raise the price of provisions without proportionably raising that of labour, to what privations and evils must you necessarily expose the labourer! He was ready to admit with the noble lord that, cœleris paribus, the immediate effect of a high advance of provisions might probably be a reduction of the price of labour; because labourers being desirous of obtaining the same comforts that they had been used to, might be stimulated to more diligence. They might work sixteen hours instead of ten; and thus the competition for employment being increased among the same number of workmen, without any increase of demand, the price of labour might fall. But, will any person contend that this state of things can long continue? The labourer must go to the parish, or turns to some more profitable employment, if by chance any can be found, or he must emigrate, or work himself out by overstrained exertion. The proportion being then altered between the demand for labour and the supply, its price will rise. This effect sooner or later must happen; but till it has actually taken place how dreadful must be the situation of the labourer! Soldiers or sailors may no doubt be put to a short allowance, and for a time subsist upon it; but will any man therefore contend, that they can permanently be kept on such allowance? The established order of things, the constitution of our common nature, (said Mr. P.) makes it equally impossible for a high price of provisions to consist permanently with a low price of labour.

After this reasoning Mr. Philips proceeded to examine the tables of prices of provisions compared with those of labour, which lord Lauderdale had delivered to the committee of the Lords. He observed, that if his reasoning were just, it would explain those tables, while the tables themselves would serve as a test of his reasoning. After remarking that there had been a considerable fluctuation of price, that of labour being sometimes low while the price of wheat was high, he stated the average of each as collected from the tables, and informed the committee that he had asked the hon. member for Glasgow (Mr. Finlay) whether, in the respective articles of manufacture referred to, such average price of labour was a fair price for the workman to receive at the given average price of wheat. The answer of that hon. gentleman, than whom no person was more capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject, uniformly was, "that in his opinion the given price of labour bore a very fair proportion to that of wheat."

Having thus shown both by reasoning and by reference to facts, that the price of provisions must ultimately and on the average regulate that of labour, he proceeded to show the effect that an advance of provisions must have on our manufacturing interests. And here Mr. Philips said, that he wished, on such topics, to reduce his reasoning as much as possible to numerical calculation. He would suppose, for the sake of argument, without at all entering into the enquiry, that three-fifths, or 60 per cent. of the labourer's wages were spent in provisions, and that provisions were 80 per cent. dearer here than they were in France, or any manufacturing country on the continent. By multiplying 60 by 80, and dividing by 100, the committee would see that the excess of the price of labour here above that of France would, from these dates, and according to his reasoning, be 48 per cent. He wished the committee to consider what must be the effect of such an excessive price of labour employed in our manufac- tures, when compared with the low price of labour employed in the manufactures of France, and what an advantage it must give to the French manufacturers in their attempts to rival us on the continent. And here he begged the committee not to delude themselves with the notion that because our manufactures had hitherto been superior in some respects to those of other countries, that superiority would be easily maintained. Our advantage had been principally in our superior capital, and establishments, and in the disciplined industry of our workmen. But capital did not belong exclusively to this country. It might easily be exported wherever it could be the most profitably employed. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the cotton manufactures of France, but he had conversed with several gentlemen more capable than himself of judging correctly of them, and among the rest with the hon. member for Glasgow, before referred to, who had lately visited that country; and they all concurred in expressing their great surprise at the state of those manufactures, at the extraordinary progress which had been made in them during the war, and at the excellent fabrics which they produced. In France establishments in all the different branches of the cotton trade are formed, and a large body of labourers and skilful mechanics is trained in them. The people and the government are zealous to encourage these manufactures, in which every gentleman, at all conversant with such subjects, must know that it is impossible for us to prevent any improvements made by our own countrymen from being introduced. The contest in the foreign market is beginning between the French and British manufacturer, and he believed it would be a severe one. Let us (said Mr. Philips) not aid our rivals in the struggle. If we artificially raise the price of provisions, we shall raise the price of labour, and in the same proportion we shall assist our rivals against ourselves. Do what we will, the price of provisions and labour must be higher here than on the continent. Let not parliament, therefore, unnecessarily and spontaneously increase the evil. Here Mr. Philips referred to a passage in Mr. Malthus's Observations on the Corn Laws, where the writer states that, "it must be allowed that a country, which possesses any peculiar facilities for successful exertion in manufacturing industry, can never make a full and complete use of its ad- vantages, unless the price of its labour and other commodities be reduced to that level compared with other countries, which results from the most perfect freedom of the corn trade."

But we are told, that we ought to produce corn sufficient for our own consumption, lest in time of need foreign nations should endanger our very existence by refusing us a supply. This fear appeared to him chimerical. Is it possible (said Mr. Philips) to suppose, that the richest nation in the world, a nation having, unless you artificially raise the price of provisions, the greatest variety of the best and cheapest commodities to offer in exchange for any articles imported into it; that such a nation is to be starved, if it does not produce a sufficiency of corn for its subsistence; because, forsooth, other nations, wanting its commodities, and having more corn than they can consume, will refuse to relieve its deficiency out of their own superfluity? It does not at the present moment seem probable that attempts will again be made to destroy our commerce equal in power and malignity with those directed against it by Buonoparte! Yet, notwithstanding the immense means of hostility which he possessed, he found that even he could not prevent us from receiving corn when we wanted it. Surely the committee will not be persuaded that we ought to overlook or reject advantages arising to the country in the ordinary course of things, merely to guard against the recurrence of such an extraordinary and unprecedented combination of circumstances as may never again take place. Here Mr. Philips remarked, that our geographical position gave us assurance of security and peculiar advantages in the corn trade, fixed as we are between the countries producing and exporting grain, and those regularly importing it.

It appeared to him that one of the objections incident to the system of our corn laws was, that, by generally excluding import, they prevented foreigners from providing beforehand for our supply in case of need. On such occasions the fear of wanting the food necessary for our subsistence, spread through the country, and prices rose very high, and very rapidly. If, on the contrary, importation were generally permitted, foreign nations who grow corn would make ample provision for our supply in all circumstances, and prevent such sudden and violent fluctuations of price. If the fear of wanting supply in case we do not produce all the corn necessary for our subsistence, be not visionary, but well founded, why is it not expressed in reference to another commodity, the next in importance to our security, because essential to the very existence of our navy? He alluded to the article of hemp. Yet we find that our fleets can sail the undisputed masters of the ocean, though we do not grow hemp sufficient for rigging them. Here Mr. Philips expressed his diffidence respecting the calculations of remunerating prices which had been offered to the committees. On this subject the witnesses had differed greatly from one another. It must be obvious, that the remunerating price will vary with the varieties of skill and capital employed in cultivation, with the nature of the soil, the state of the currency, the wages of labour, the parochial and other taxes, and in short with the price of all the commodities necessary to the farmer's use and consumption. If, as he had contended, the price of provisions ultimately regulates that of all other commodities, a very great proportion of the expenses incident to the farmer must fall with the reduced price of his produce. The repeal of the income tax must also contribute towards lowering the remunerating price. Under all the circumstances of our present situation, it appeared to him, that the committee had not the means of making even a tolerably correct estimate of the remunerating price for the growers of corn, and were certainly not possessed of information sufficient to enable them to decide permanently at what price importation should be prohibited.

Mr. Philips said he was aware that, in proportion as a greater quantity of inferior land, of land less adapted to tillage, is brought into culture, the remunerating price will rise. But he entertained doubts of the policy of offering artificial encouragement to the extended tillage of such soils, which the evidence given to the committees shows can be cultivated only at a greatly increased expense. But if you are to encourage by legislative enactment the indefinite tillage of your worst lands, what is now a remunerating price will soon be found insufficient, and parliament, after the intervals of a very few years, may be regularly required to turn farmers again, to make fresh calculations of remunerating prices, and to raise the price at which importation is to be permitted.

Here Mr. Philips read the following extract from Mr. Malthus's pamphlet, before referred to: "The general principles of political economy teach us to buy all our commodities where we can have them the cheapest; and perhaps there is no general rule in the whole compass of the science, to which fewer justifiable exceptions can be found in practice. In the simple view of present wealth, population, and power, three of the most natural and just objects of national ambition, I can hardly imagine an exception; as it is only by a strict adherence to this rule that the capital of a country can ever be made to yield its greatest amount of produce.

"It is truly stated by Adam Smith, that by means of trade and manufactures, a country may enjoy a much greater quantity of subsistence, and consequently may have a much greater population than what its own lands could afford. If Holland, Venice, and Hamburgh, had declined a dependence upon foreign countries for their support, they would always have remained perfectly inconsiderable states, and never could have risen to that pitch of wealth, power, and population, which distinguished the meridian of their career."

He observed, that there were two ways of equalizing subsistence and population, one by increasing food, the other by limiting population, and warned the committee against being led into measures whose tendency might be to produce that effect in the latter way. Why (said Mr. Philips) should a commercial and manufacturing country like this, have such a jealousy and dread of the importation of corn? An importation of corn cannot take place without a corresponding export of commodities on which British industry has been employed. That export will increase your national wealth that wealth will increase your population, and that increased population will produce an increased demand for your agricultural produce. In this way will all the great interests of the country be much more effectually and permanently benefited, than by a system of restrictions, and exclusive privileges, at variance with the best principles established in the science of political economy, and which, he had before contended, had produced injury rather than advantage to the empire.

Mr. Philips observed, that no country was so interested as this in establishing the principle of free trade, because no other country could profit equally by the general recognition of that principle. Foreign nations mistaking, like the advocates of the regulations before the committee, the circumstances which have operated against our wealth for the causes of it, are now following our example. They are prohibiting or imposing restraints on the import of our fabrics, in order to encourage their own manufactures, from which they will receive inferior fabrics at a higher price. Let us convince them, by an example, of their mistake. Let us convince them, that by leaving industry and enterprize unfettered, and by allowing capital to take its natural and voluntary direction, we are persuaded that the true interests of this country, and of every other will be most effectually promoted.

Mr. Philips proceeded to say, that Great Britain was geographically a commercial country, that commerce had stimulated her agriculture rather than agriculture had stimulated her commerce. It had given wealth to her people, and diffused fertility over her soil. Take care said he, that in attempting to change the natural character of your country, you do not stop the progress of national prosperity. At the present moment a great fall in the price of agricultural produce has spread a panic among farmers and land-owners. Such occurrences, whenever they take place, either in agriculture, manufactures, or in any other branch of commerce, produce serious inconveniencies, and evils, which every person must deplore. They are incident to all sudden changes in the political relations of a country, whether from peace to war, or from war to peace. It is certainly very desirable to lighten the pressure of such a temporary evil as much as possible; and if any temporary measure should be brought forward for that purpose, it would have his cordial support. But he did not see the necessity of applying a permanent regulation to an evil that he conceived to be only temporary, particularly as he was convinced that the regulation proposed would raise permanently the price of provisions.

contended, that any injury sustained by agriculture would be felt by no class of the community more severely than by the merchants and the labourers. It was well done on the part of the House last session, to refer the consideration of this important subject to the present period. Every consideration was due to the feelings of the people, especially on such a subject, It was due to them to convince them that the proposed measure would be as beneficial to them as to those to whom it more immediately applied. Every thing, calculated to render the food and comforts of the lower classes cheap and accessible, was comprehended in the propositions of the right hon. gentleman opposite. By the laws of king William the principle of these propositions had been carried to a much greater extent. The object of those laws was to encourage the agriculture of this country, and render us independent on any foreign country for our supply of corn. Exportation was for that purpose encouraged by bounties, and importation prevented by duties so high, as, in fact, to amount to a total prohibition. The propositions of the right hon. gentleman, though in the same spirit as king William's laws, went by no means to the same extent. They were founded on a view of the comparative prices of grain, under which the landed and the commercial interests first began to thrive, had thriven, and continued to thrive down to the present day. Our manufactures had risen to their existing elevation under similar restrictions. The present object was to adapt the principle of ancient laws to modern exigencies, in such a way that no danger might ensue. His hon. friend who had just spoken, was apprehensive of the enhancement of the price of the necessaries of life. He would meet his hon. friend on that ground. He would contend that the principle of the measure proposed was calculated to render, and in effect would render bread cheaper, than the principle espoused by his hon. friend. He would state this proposition—that the price of food in this country must and would come up to the price at which the producer of it would receive a remuneration adequate to the remuneration derived from other trades and manufactures. In saying this, he considered the comforts and the security of capital in agriculture as part of its profits; so that although the profits of the agriculturist were never equal as money profits, those comforts and that security of capital supplied the deficiency; and with respect to the importation of foreign corn, that had its limits—natural, such as the increasing wealth and population of the countries whence it was exported—artificial, such as the policy of different governments, or their impolicy, or the occasional dissatisfaction of the people, to which governments must necessarily give way, or changes of administration, &c. &c. In France, at the present moment, the exportation of corn would cease by law when corn became 49s. a quarter. What security, then, had this country for a constant supply? But the laws of king William, instead of making her dependent upon foreigners for a supply, rendered her an exporting country herself. At one time Great Britain exported annually upwards of 600,000 quarters of corn. But in 1763 we stopped the export, and admitted corn from all parts of the world at 40s. which was before the export price. Here was a great and material change. If the amount of tonnage which had entered the British ports, within the last three or four years, were estimated, it would be found to amount to about 1,500,000 tons; but two thirds of the whole tonnage entering British ports, would only bring us 5 millions of grain. In 1764, the French issued a decree respecting the trade in grain, to the effect that all corn exported should be conveyed in French ships, navigated by French seamen. What should prevent other countries from adopting this practice if they found we depended on them for food for our manufacturers? If, then, this country placed herself in such a situation as to require the food, she placed herself in a state of double dependence. If foreign countries withheld their markets from our manufactures and their corn from our people, in what a situation should we be? Some people, however, thought of nothing but exclaiming, Give us a brisk demand. Thus far he had argued with the view of showing that the price of grain would not be enhanced by the system long ago adopted, and which they were now merely called on to continue, but that on the contrary, for any term of years, the price would be lower than by the system for the encouragement of foreign corn. Were we to be dependent on foreign countries for any considerable part of our food, the constant alarm and dread of a failure in the supply which this would give rise to, would frequently enhance the price much more than it ever could reach under the regulated system. Consider, for instance, what would be the consequence if a fleet from the Baltic was delayed beyond its usual time? If he were to allow that there was a necessity that grain should be higher in this country than in foreign countries that necessity arose out of our taxation. But this difference did not need to give that serious alarm to our manufac- turers which they seemed to feel—and he would give his reasons why. Grain was not higher in proportion in this country to what it was in foreign countries now, than it was sixty years ago. On this subject, he confessed, he was not possessed of such ample information as he could wish. But he would take, with regard to France, the information furnished by M. de Montesquieu, the minister of the interior, who in his projet of a law to regulate the exportation of grain, went back a considerable way in his examination of the prices in France. According to this projet, from 1756 to 1788, the price of wheat in France, was 25s. 10d. per quarter English money. During the same period of thirty years, it was at 46s. in England. At present, the average price of wheat in France was 45s.; and he would take it in England at 80s. It was obvious, therefore, that the proportion between the prices of the two countries had not increased; and if the difference formerly did not prevent the success of our manufactures, he did not see why it ought to produce that effect now. The price of grain in England and France being, in the former period, as 26s. to 46s.; and at present, as 45s. to 80s. M. de Montesquieu, in speaking of the prices up to which grain might be exported in France, observed, that 49s. or 50s. a quarter was such a price as the people of that country were always able to bear. It was not, he then said, their true interest that grain should fall too much, for their wages would fall in proportion, and the other objects of their expenditure not falling at the same time, the workmen would thus run a risk of being in a worse situation than before. What was most injurious to the poor was, the frequent and rapid transitions from low prices to scarcity. That class was well known to be bad economists; and they frequently suffered greatly before they submitted to change their habits. A moderate price, exempt from vicissitudes, was more advantageous to them than a trifling economy in times of abundance; for it was well known that the too great facility of procuring subsistence was often destructive of their morals and activity. With respect to the manufacturer, he added, if he pays a little more to his workmen, he can lay it on his goods, and he ought therefore to be indifferent to a slight augmentation. The internal consumers being the proprietor who has sold his wheat to advantage, and the workman who has received better wages, they are all enabled to augment their enjoyments, and consume more manufactured goods. If grain were to fall so low as some manufacturers would wish, who would purchase their goods? Certainly neither the proprietor, the farmer, nor the labourer. Such were the observations of the French minister of the interior, and they were certainly deserving of the most serious attention.

His hon. friend behind him (Mr. Philips) seemed to him to have contemplated, with great composure, the absolute destruction of the agriculture of a great part of the country. According to him, certain poor districts of this country ought to give way to certain rich districts of France and Flanders. He, for one, confessed that he did not well understand this policy. Did not, he would ask, these poor districts afford a market to our manufacturers? Did not Ireland, for example, take our manufactures in return for her produce? Was it not safer to rely on such a market, than on one in other countries? Of the one we might be deprived, but of the other we could not. We ought, therefore, in fairness, to give way some thing in extent of market, in consideration of the great advantage of security.

He would now advert to the subject of reduction of rents. It was very common with tradesmen and others to say, let rents be reduced. Suppose rents were to be reduced one half, what would be the consequence? One of two things must follow. Either the tradesman must look into his ledger, and see what the landlord's expenditure was last year, and if the rent were reduced one-half, write off from the ledger one-half of last year's bill: or that one-half of rent must purchase as much as the whole of the former year. What would be the consequence to the journeymen? In the one case the tradesman would be obliged to turn off one half of them; and in the other case, to reduce their wages one-half. But why were the manufacturers so anxious for a low price of grain? They did not wish this, because they supposed it beneficial to the labouring classes. They wished low prices, they said, because cheap bread would make labour cheap. It was not the money-price, but the actual quantity of the comforts and necessaries of life which the wages of the lower people could command, which could enable us to pronounce on their situation. In his conscience he believed that at 80s. a quarter more of the comforts and necessaries of life were enjoyed by the labouring classes of this country, than was the case in those countries where provisions were lower. If we were to have foreign corn, it must be taken from the inhabitants of other countries. They would find that the people of Poland fed on inferior sorts of grain, which allowed wheat to be exported; and they were thus deprived of the fruits of the country they tilled, which seemed to belong in nature more to them than the inhabitants of other states. The labourer might pay more for provisions in this country than in France; but did he not also enjoy more of the comforts and necessaries of life than the peasant of France, Flanders, or Poland? The reduced rent would be soon felt by the tradesman and manufacturer, as well as the farmer. But the reduced rent would not have such an effect on the prices of grain as was supposed. On this subject he had made some calculations: taking the agriculture of the most improved districts, upon the four courses in use, if they gave turnips at one and a half quarters, barley at five quarters, clover or beans at two and a half quarters, and wheat at three quarters, the whole would make 12 quarters; divide 12 by 4, and that would give 3 quarters per annum to the acre. He calculated that every 10s. which were added to the rent or expenses of land, made an addition of about 3s. to a quarter of wheat. If, then, he took the whole rental of the country at 30s. per acre, (and this he was satisfied was considerably higher than the rate at which it ought to be taken), it would be seen, that the annihilation of the entire rent would only effect a diminution in the price of corn to the amount of 10s. per quarter. This done, he would ask, could the English farmer compete with the foreign grower? No. Even after this reduction of his expense, the price at which he could grow and sell his corn, would be much above that at which the foreign merchant could send his corn into the market. The consideration of the rent, therefore, he held to be a very immaterial part of the subject. If a reduction of 10s. per acre were made in the rent of land, this would only diminish the price of the quarter of corn 3s. 4d. and this would only make a difference of about three farthings, hardly so much, in the loaf. The right hon. gentleman, in the propositions which he had submitted to the committee, had followed the example set in earlier periods of our history; and he had followed it with cautious steps. In taking the import price at 80s. he had fixed on a price which ought not to excite any alarm. Could it be said that 80s. a quarter was a consideration which could give any uneasiness, or which looked like a scarcity price? The average price of wheat during the last 20 years was 83s. During the first 10 of these years it was 73s. If the price of wheat 10 years ago was 73s. could 80s. be now considered more than a fair price? During the first 10 of the last 20 years what was our taxation? In 1792 the whole of our taxes amounted only to 16 millions. When wheat was at 73s. the taxes were 34 millions; and at present our taxes exceeded 60 millions. In taking 80s. therefore, he was taking the very lowest rate at which the import price could be fixed. The assertion that the importation price was the lowest at which corn would be sold in England after the measure in contemplation had been carried into effect, he denied. On this subject, for proof, they could only refer to the experience of former times. During this, however, it would be seen, that while 62s. was the protecting price, and while a bounty was given on exportation, for a considerable period, the average price of wheat had been as low as 30s. per quarter. A more recent instance of this might be given from the rapidity with which the price of wheat had declined in the year 1813;when, in consequence of the expectations entertained of a peace, its value had sunk to little more than the half of what it had been. From the papers on the table, they would see this from the Deptford and Portsmouth contract prices in February and November of that year. The contract price at Deptford for wheat was, in February 100s. the quarter. In November it was 65s. 2d. and during this period it was to be remarked, more corn was exported from, than imported into Great Britain and Ireland. The Portsmouth contract price was, in February, 102s.; in November, 67s. 2d.

From these statements he thought it proved that the lowest market price of corn, was not necessarily that up to which the importation of grain was prohibited, and at the same time it would be seen how great the agricultural influence had become in this country, and how competent it was to maintain itself. It was now established that we had the means of procuring a sufficiency of food for the population of the country, independent of a foreign supply. He was satisfied that we could not obtain from foreign countries any very large portion of the supply necessary for our annual consumption; but if our ports were thrown open, the British agriculturist would be intimidated by the dangers thus set before his eyes, and thus the most injurious effects would be produced. Our own farmers might be oppressed and kept down, and a foreign supply obtained when, in truth, it was not wanted. But if such a system were adopted, we should in time of need find that we could not command it. The danger might become more alarming than it had ever yet been. The difference of prices might in itself serve as a bounty on importation; and how far this might operate he could not tell. He certainly believed it was in the contemplation of the agriculturists of France and Flanders to endeavour to avail themselves largely of the advantages offered by the British market. All the evils which be anticipated might not arise from the free importation of corn; but who, he asked, would choose to be dependent on a foreign country for the supply of an article of such primary importance? Situated as this country was, equally the admiration and the envy of every other, it became their duty to watch carefully over its interests, to guard against its being dependent on any country, and least of all dependent on France. He did not believe that that difference in the price of bread, which naturally existed between this country and France, would ever materially operate to the prejudice of our manufactures. It was possible we might lose some of the markets, where we had been accustomed to dispose of our goods, but we might gain others. South America, if the emancipation of that interesting country was finally accomplished, as he, for one, ardently hoped it would be, seemed to open a new field for British industry, which he confidently anticipated would more than console our merchants and manufacturers for any disappointment they might meet with elsewhere.

assured the House, that he did not appear there as the representative or advocate of any particular class in society, either in Ireland, or this country. His object was, to protect the whole country at large from the influx of that which could be grown at home, from foreign, and perhaps hostile powers, to the ruin of those interests more peculiarly dear to them. To his own knowledge, millions of barrels of grain were perishing in barns in Ireland, for the want of a sale; and why? because the foreign arrivals swallowed up every thing. Within the space of twelve months, 258,900 barrels of foreign grain had been imported into Great Britain. Surely this fact alone skewed the necessity of fortifying and encouraging their own growth, in preference to any other. The hon. baronet said, he was not an advocate of the agriculturist against the manufacturer, believing that the interests of both went hand in hand. The man who pretended to be the exclusive and separate advocate of either, was sure to be the decided enemy of both. Ireland was capable of supplying herself with grain, and exporting a superfluity; she was, therefore, entitled to a preferable protection; and let the House consider the innumerable benefits which must have followed to the manufacturing interests if the fifty-eight millions sterling remitted to foreign countries had been husbanded for domestic purposes. Suppose, for instance, in the event of a foreign dependance for grain a bad year had occurred abroad, then what an opportunity would be afforded to effect by starvation among us the decay of our protecting army at home. Was not Ireland, which furnished, and would in an increasing ratio, continue to furnish food to this country, entitled to a protecting security from foreign interposition? Great Britain and Ireland were now one, and engaged in a common cause; formerly, they pulled opposite ways, but now he trusted the same wreath would entwine the rose, the leek, and the shamrock. The worthy baronet conjured the manufacturing interest not to hold themselves distinct from the agricultural. Nothing was so fallacious. If the one could not get a fair price for his labour, he could not go and buy at the other's shop. It is clear, then, the other could have no sale for his goods. Ireland gives you, said the hon. baronet, her labour for your workmanship. She has but two staple trades, the linen and her agriculture. If the manufacturer of England sets his shoulders to put down one of these, she will say, you are ungrateful, and she will withhold from your traffic that expenditure which would otherwise merge in it.

declared his intention not to go very generally into the subject till the committee should sit again; but, at the same time, as several things had fallen from the right hon. opener of the Resolutions, and his hon. friend below him (Mr. Western), that ought to be noticed without delay, and as he expected there would not be many speakers on his side of the question, as the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose), who had been said to have espoused the cause of the people, had taken no part in this debate, he should not let this occasion pass without offering a few observations on what had fallen from those who preceded him. With the right hon. opener he deprecated the notions which had got abroad, that this question was taken up by the members of the legislature merely with a view to their own private interests; but at the same time he could not but observe, that when these were affected, gentlemen most anxious for the good of the community at large were sometimes thought to take a narrower view of the subject under consideration than they were accustomed to take of political questions at other times. He could not help saying that a very peculiar interest must be taken in the value of land in that House, where the whole of its members were sworn to be landed proprietors. The right hon. opener of the Resolutions had said that the measure in contemplation, now that it was better understood, had not met with that violent opposition which it had experienced last year, when their table was covered with innumerable petitions. He (Mr. Baring) did not, for his own part, perceive that any change had taken place in the public mind, and if no new petitions had been presented, he thought it was to be accounted for, from the supposition that the parties were of opinion, that the vast number which they had poured in last year, had not been ineffectual. This to him appeared perfectly consistent and rational. The city of London, he understood, was preparing a new one, but he felt no anxiety to see the example followed in the present instance. As far as he was informed, there was no proof of the public mind having undergone any change on this question. At the only two country towns where the subject had been brought forward—where meetings had taken place for the purpose of petitioning parliament for an alteration of the corn laws, the people had risen in opposition to the ob- ject of them. In both instances the parties had been hunted from the usual place of assembling, and obliged to adjourn to a room in an inn, where the friends of the measure passed their own resolutions. So much for the change in public opinion! At those meetings, as on the present occasion, the resolutions had stated (and doubtless those who made the assertions, believed they spoke truth), that the effect of their being carried into effect, would be to fix the price of corn at a moderate rate. This topic every gentleman dwelt upon, in order to make the measure palatable. How, he would ask, could this be possible? How, if such were the effect of the resolutions, could the purpose for which they were brought forward be answered, when the cry of each of the petitioners was, that if their corn was not sold at a higher price they must all be ruined? How, after this, could it be maintained, that the price of corn would be lower? A steadier supply might be furnished; but if this were effected, the public must pay a higher price for it. On a former evening, he had not denied that the corn question ought to be brought forward early; but he contended, that in the present situation of the country, while the currency remained in its present state, and while our foreign relations were not definitively fixed, no permanent measure ought to be adopted. In the evidence given before the committee, one of the most sensible men examined, Mr. Webb of Salisbury, had said, "I look upon the price of corn to be more affected by the circulation of paper money than by the increased amount of the taxes." The defect of our currency could not be remedied at present; and this, he thought, opposed a substantial reason to the immediate adoption of any permanent measure. This ought to be well considered from the great inconveniences ever attendant on an alteration of the established corn laws. In his opinion, the remedy to be now applied ought to be temporary. That the persons who were on this occasion their petitioners were as much, nay, more entitled to the attention of that House than the merchants and manufacturers, whose distresses had so often been brought before them, he was ready to admit; but this was not a case in which the parties could be relieved, like the merchants, &c. by a loan or by an issue of Exchequer-bills in their favour. He would therefore propose, that instead of 80s. per quarter, the im- portation price should for the present be made 75s. to continue at that for a year, and then to be diminished 2s. yearly till the price far back to that at which the importation of foreign corn was at present prohibited. Such a plan would uphold the agriculturist against the difficulties with which he at present had to contend, till his falling rent, relief from the war taxes, and other favourable circumstances should enable him to derive a fair profit from the product of his land, though importation was permitted at 75s. the quarter. At present he thought the agriculturist ought to be relieved under the difficulties with which he had to struggle, difficulties which did not arise out of the actual circumstances of the case, so much as out of the alarm with which he had been seized. Mr. Webb had said in his evidence, that "If the price of corn went back to what it was in 1792, he did not see why all expenses should not in a length of time be reduced in the same proportion." And that this would be the case he (Mr. Baring) had no doubt why was the former at an increased expense? It was because the price of labour followed the advance of corn; This was a fact of which no country gentleman could entertain a doubt. From the evidence of Mr. Dennet, it appeared that the wages of labour were for the most part paid, partly in labour, partly in money, and partly in poor rents, so that the reduction of the price of labour must immediately follow a declension in that of corn. This he proceeded to show would also soon be the case with the harness-maker, the wheelwright, the collar-maker, &c. The taxes on farms had been stated by Mr. Webb to amount from two to three per cent. an acre; thus it would be seen on a farm worth 500l. the taxes would be from 15l. to 25l. in which was included his riding horses, his servant in livery, &c. He could wish that, on a farm of 500 acres, the farmers expenses were specifically shown. With the exception of two or three of the witnesses, who thought, when they were about it, they might as well name a good round sum as not, the outside of what they had named as a proper protecting price had been 80s., though some had 72s., 73s., and 75s. would be a satisfactory protecting price; but the outside of what had been stated (with the exception before alluded to) as a fit price, was 80s. and this was named on a supposition, that their rents would be kept up, and their charges the same; but they had it also on their authority, that these could not continue the same. The disbanding of the army, and a variety of circumstances, from the effect they produced on labour in the country, made this the worst possible time for making a permanent arrangement. He did not know whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Western) had satisfied the committee that the present high rents had very little to do with the question; but he had not been convinced by his arguments. If he visited a farm of 500l. per annum, he was told that the rent was not so much a matter of complaint, as the taxes; if he looked into the taxes, they were nothing, the hardship was in the rent. He, for his own part, knew the rent must be of material importance. He at present received 1,200l. for an estate which formerly let but for 600l. would it be maintained, that if he were again to reduce it to that sum, the tenant would not feel it of some importance to have 600l. taken off his shoulders. All that had been advanced on this point, he felt as being a mere excuse for keeping up the present high rents? He contended it was impossible for any evidence to show more clearly than the evidence before parliament had shown, that that artificial support of the agriculture of the country which had been called for would be improper. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Western) had said, this country could grow sufficient corn for its consumption. That the progress of agriculture had increased its produce, he did not doubt, and he could easily believe that it might be increased still more; but he doubted very much if it could ever be made to furnish a permanent supply equal to the consumption of its increasing population. If land would not produce corn without greater sums being expended on them than the corn was worth, they might be made to furnish a supply which would make us purchase our bread at eighteen-pence the loaf, when, if we exerted our industry on that same land to raise that which was congenial to its soil, by exchanging its produce against that of the corn lands of other countries, we might get our loaf for a shilling. The whole mass of the country ought not to be compelled to pay a high price for bread, that the experiment of cultivating barren lands might be tried. In nothing were the dispensations of Providence more admirable than in the care displayed, that the different soils of different countries should yield productions which might be advantageously exchanged for each other; it was much better, then, that we should employ ourselves in raising that which we might so dispose of, instead of labouring to produce that which other lands were destined to supply. The right hon. gentleman had admitted this in other cases, but not with respect to corn. On this subject he had said, what could we do, if having thus made ourselves dependent on another country, that country, in the day of our greatest need, should close her ports against us! He would answer—experience had shewn that a country could never be starved. Holland was dependent on other countries for a supply of corn, and its price was and almost ever had been the average price of Europe. But then the danger of depending on France for a supply had been strongly urged. France, excepting in years of extraordinary plenty like the present, would send but little corn to this country. Our greatest supplies would be likely to be derived from the countries bordering on the Baltic. He put it to the committee, in opposition to what had been said of the danger of depending on foreign countries for our corn, if it could be anticipated that ever a period of greater difficulty would arrive than that which had occurred during the reign of Buonaparté, yet even while he was in power, in spite of his greatest hostility, more corn (three times over) had been imported into this country than ever had been before, within the same time, since the year 1697—more indeed than at any period of our history. To suppose any danger of this sort, was to suppose a thing wholly out of the question. He felt it his duty to state this not from any ambition of popularity (about which he was as careless as any man in that House), but from a sense that he owed it to the country. He, however, was anxious that the farmer should have relief in his distress, and as this could not be afforded by an issue of Exchequer-bills, or by a loan, he could wish to propose a temporary exclusion of foreign corn for a certain number of years, which would give the farmers an opportunity of paying themselves. Though his rents were reduced, he was satisfied the country gentleman would find his situation continue the same; and though the prices of some things had not come down as might have been expected—though posting had not been materially reduced, and the brewers still kept up the price of beer, notwithstanding the declaration of the price of malt—he could see no reason why that House, finding a change was about to take place, should resolve to oppose the return of things to their ancient and healthful state, by attempting to bolster up the price of corn by artificial means, which must prove injurious to the vital interests of the country. When he had heard the right hon. gentleman's resolutions, he intended to move on a future day certain counter-resolutions, which would go to fix the protecting price of corn at 75s. for a year, to fall gradually back to the present importation price. After the right hon. gentleman's resolutions had passed pro formâ, he hoped there would be no objection to go into the committee on Monday pro formâ, in order to receive those which he desired to offer.

explained. He said he had not argued in favour of a restrictive system as applied to corn, because that system had been found advantageous to our manufactures—he had merely mentioned it as an observation not altogether without weight.

having been personally alluded to by an hon. gentleman who had just sat down, merely wished to say, that the reason why he had not in the course of this evening's debate offered himself to the notice of the House, was because he had understood that the Resolutions of his right hon. friend were merely now to be passed pro formâ, and the discussion upon them to be taken on a future occasion. With respect to his opinions, the hon. gentleman was much mistaken if he imagined that he had changed them during the recess; the fact was, that they were not only unchanged, but that every thing he had heard and seen upon the subject had tended to confirm him in the sentiments he had previously stated to the House. He complimented Mr. Robinson on the mode in which he had introduced the question to the House, and anticipated a full, fair, and candid discussion of the important subject. If the hon. member had any great anxiety or curiosity to hear him, he would probably be gratified on the next night the subject should be debated.

explained, that he had conjectured that Mr. Rose had altered his opinion, from what he had seen stated respecting the interviews with the earl of Liverpool. He had feared that the right hon. gentleman had, during the recess, thought better of the matter, and had changed his title of 'the Man of the People' for one of the new grand little crosses of the Order of the Bath.

was surprised that the hon. gentleman was not yet aware, that such information as he had received regarding the interviews with the earl of Liverpool was unfounded.

was unwilling to trouble the Committee upon the present occasion, especially after what had been said by the right hon. gentleman who had last taken his seat. He would either proceed, or defer his arguments until a subsequent occasion, according to the wish of the House. [Cries of Go on, go on!] He regretted that his hon. friends below (Mr. Philips and Mr. Baring), in the course of their speeches, had only touched on matters of lesser importance, shrinking from the main point of debate. They had not ventured to state what would be the situation of the poorer classes of the community, the vast majority of the people of England, if the resolutions were rejected. In Great Britain half the population was engaged in pursuits of agriculture, and what would be their condition were things to remain unaltered? What was their state at the present moment? The labourers were unable to procure employment from the farmer, and they were consequently thrown upon the poor-rates. When gentlemen argued in the way in which these resolutions had been opposed, it was necessary to ask them to wham the soil of the country belonged? It was not, in truth, the property of those who were called the proprietors, it belonged to the poor of the country, to those for whom our wise system of laws had provided, however ill those laws might in some cases be executed. By the refusal of the farmer to give employment to the labourer, he was thrown upon the overseer, who again sent him back to the farmer, and an immense number of these unfortunate individuals were now actually converted into what were called 'roundsmen,' being handed round from farmer to farmer, who was to endeavour to find them some employment, that they might not become complete burthens upon the parish. By these means perhaps they earned half their usual rate of wages; and how was the other half to be supplied, but from the poor-rates? One of the hon. gentlemen who had argued on the other side of the question, had quoted to lute House the opinion of the learned Mr. Malthus. What was the fact with regard to that gentleman? During the last year, not having sufficient information before him to draw any correct conclusions, he had done little more than state the arguments on both sides. Ten days ago he had published a second pamphlet, in which having now received the information which was necessary before he stated any positive opinion, he asserted, "I now do not hesitate to declare unequivocally that some restriction upon the importation of foreign grain has become necessary." He repeated the words from memory, but he was sure he had givers them correctly.—The hon. gentleman who last had advocated the other side of the question, had employed an argument which seemed calculated to mislead the country. He had contended as if it were meant by the supporters of the resolutions to be said, that their immediate operation would be to produce a low price of grain. It was impossible for any man to make such an assertion, much less for any mars to believe it if it were made, for the object of this measure was not to make the price of corn extremely low, but to prevent it at any future time from becoming immensely high. Why was not the farmer to have some protection? Did his capital and his industry demand no consideration? Were speculating manufacturers only to be relieved, while farmers were to be placed at the mercy of the foreign grower? He had contended also, that the difficulties now complained of were attributed too little to rent and too much to taxes; but why did not this appear in some of the reports of evidence taken before committees of both Houses of Parliament? Why was not the hon. gentleman found putting questions upon this subject to the witnesses who he complained were so biassed in the testimony they gave? It had been said that these taxes, in truth, amounted to no more than about 15l. a year upon 500 acres of land. Certainly, the direct taxes might not exceed that sum; but who could calculate, at any moderate sum, the indirect taxes to which the farmer was subject, in a concern that required a capital of at least 5,000l.? He begged to state a fact that had come within his knowledge, in his own neighbourhood; the cultivators of the land had been accustomed to give their land a dressing of soot, which might cost 40s. per acre; but the effect was, that the crop was augmented one-fifth, or per- haps one-fourth. Of late this practice had been discontinued, and if, in consequence of difficulties, the same resolution had been made by the farmers more extensively through England, where should we be able to find a supply equal to the maintenance of one-fifth of the population, who would thus be deprived of bread? It was maintained that these resolutions were intended merely to delude the people, and to prop and bolster up individual and private interests by a show of justice; but he was convinced that no man, who dispassionately viewed the subject, would assert that the increased rent had been any advantage to the land-owner, compared to those he enjoyed previous to 1794, when, if his rents were low, his expenditure was still lower in proportion. The only object of all parties ought to be, and he believed was, candidly to discuss the subject, and to come to a determination that would render justice to all parties. As to what had been urged on the impropriety of making it a permanent measure, no man could suppose that it would be coexistent with the world, that circumstances might not operate to induce the House to alter the Bill that would be framed upon the resolutions. All he now contended for was, that some measure was, under the circumstances, required; and when the country arrived at that primitive state of innocence and simplicity which seemed to be expected by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the question, when no restrictions were necessary, he should be as happy as any man in advocating a free trade, not only in grain, but in all other articles. He begged it, however, to be remembered how much the manufacturing interests of the country were indebted to the land-owners; they made and preserved all the highways; they maintained the clergy; they supported the poor, even the manufacturing poor; and they kept the soldiers wives. [Hear! and a laugh.] Why, then, should the manufacturer refuse in his turn to allow the farmer to partake of that assistance which he had lately so frequently enjoyed?

said, that neither on the present nor any former occasion when this subject was before the House, had he ever said one word against the principle of protecting duties.

, in explanation, said, that he was aware of Mr. Maltbus's second pamphlet; and when he quoted his first production in preference to the last, it was because he did not think it had been refuted by the last.

said, he thought the resolutions, if adopted, would be highly injurious to some of the most valuable interests of the country, and was of opinion that the reasons assigned for adopting the proposed measure were by no means founded in fact. With regard to rents, the landholder had certainly for a great length of time enjoyed most extensive benefits, and the farmers must have had proportionate benefits, or they never could have afforded to pay their rents. In his own family there had lately been a small estate in the county of Sussex, the leases of which had expired, and it had been agreed between his brother and himself that it should be duly valued by a surveyor, who had put a price on it considerably more than double. In the case of another estate in the family, eighteen years ago the rent was only 300l. and it was now let for 850l. Surely, in cases of such an increase, which he understood had been pretty general throughout the kingdom, the landholders and those who farmed under them might afford to cultivate their lands, without those advantages which they now thought it necessary to claim at the expense of the manufacturing and trading parts of the community. The principal cause of the great importation of foreign corn which had lately taken place, was entirely owing to the interference of the legislature on the subject of corn last session. As soon as the corn-dealers abroad heard of the measure, they expected a bill would pass which would raise the price of corn; and they hastened to pour in as much as they possibly could, under the idea that it would readily be bought up; and he believed if the present measure were to disappear, the importation of foreign corn would disappear also. He thought it very wrong in the landholders, who had received from their high rents such great advantages from the long continuance of the war, should begin to complain in the very first year after that war was concluded. The hon. member for Norfolk had admitted last session, that his tenants could afford to sell at the then prices; and surely there was nothing so peculiarly heavy in the taxation they were liable to, as to warrant an interference on the part of the legislature which appeared to him fraught with so many mischievous consequences. It was attempting to confine the blessings of Providence to one class of men only. It was shewing extraordinary anxiety for the interests of that class, without a due consideration of the injurious effects which such a measure must produce to the manufacturers. In a great commercial country like this, our manufacturers were as much entitled to the consideration of that House, as any other body of men. If they could not purchase their bread at a reasonable rate, our commodities must be undersold at foreign markets. He had been in France during the last summer, and from what he had seen he would assert that their manufactures were in a very thriving state. A friend of his, who had had an opportunity of examining into their situation more minutely than he had, assured him that one manufactory which he had seen was in a most flourishing state, and had obtained all Arkwright's machinery in the highest degree of perfection. If the present measure were adopted, he was afraid it would prove most mischievous. He thought 80s. was too high; it was a price fixed by the parties themselves, and was a war price with war taxes. He would support the measure as far as 75s. but could not agree to 80s. If the right hon. gentleman would modify his proposition, he should be glad to wave his present objection to it.

spoke in support of the Resolutions. He said, that rents had been so much spoken of, as if the excess of rents was the cause of the difficulties under which the landholders laboured. Now it was well known, that if no rents at all were paid, there were many thousand acres, which, at the present prices of grain, could not be cultivated. It was true, that the country owed much to its manufactures, but to encourage them it would be the worst policy to depress our agriculture. The true wealth of every country was to produce sufficient food for its own inhabitants; every necessary protection should therefore be granted to those by whom the land was cultivated.

said he should on the present occasion vote for the Resolutions, on the understanding that they were then to be agreed to pro formâ. The first resolution was, indeed, quite unobjectionable, being merely a resolution of the expediency of a general free importation under a bonding system.

supported the Resolution, and said, that all that had occurred since last year, had confirmed him in the opinion which he had then formed. He observed that too much had been said of rents in the course of the discussion, since that item of expense on the generality of soils, bore a small proportion to the other expenses of the farmer.

observed, that six years ago laws were made for the protection of the farmer; where, then, was the enormous pressure which had since that time fallen on him which rendered farther measures of protection necessary? On the contrary, the property tax was about to be taken off, which would occasion a great reduction in the expense of raising corn. The amount of rents had been spoken of slightingly by some gentlemen; but it was well known that in many instances, the rents had of late years been doubled, or trebled, which circumstance must have had a most material effect on the price of grain. The Resolutions were then put and agreed to, pro formâ. On the question that the chairman do report the Resolutions to the House,

said, that before the chairman left the chair, he wished to state the course of proceeding which he thought it would be most advisable to pursue. On Monday the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) might submit his string of resolutions to the committee, when having been agreed to pro formâ, on Wednesday both propositions might be re-committed and discussed.

said, that as he had no objection to any part of the Resolutions but the regulation of the price and the time, he should adhere as much as possible to the form of the Resolutions proposed by the right hon. gentleman.

proposed, that without the formality of committing the Resolutions of the hon. gentleman, they might be printed by an understanding, and he discussed with the other Resolutions on Wednesday.

suggested, that as one set of resolutions only differed from the other in the price at which corn was to be admitted duty-free, and as to the duration of the measure to be proposed; it being the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, that the price should be 80s. and the time unlimited, and of the hon. gentleman, that the price should be 75s. and the time limited; the latter propositions might be moved as amendments, on a recommitment, to the Resolutions which had been already agreed to.

observed, that notwithstanding the two sets of Resolutions which were proposed, he should think himself at liberty to oppose even the principle of both, if he thought it necessary.

observed, that it would be very advantageous if, when both the sets of resolutions were sent forth into the country, some time were allowed to ascertain the effect which they might have on the minds of the public. If a week were allowed, perhaps by that time the public opinion might be collected as to the merits of the different Resolutions, and even some approximation might be hoped for between the hon. and right hon. gentleman.

observed, that all seemed agreed as to the course to be pursued. As to the day, the Resolutions might be ordered to be printed on Monday, and be ready for discussion on Wednesday.

was not aware that the receiving the Report on Wednesday could be attended with any inconvenience. The measure was really so simple, that there could not be any advantage in longer delay; and by the present course no member was pledged to support its principle.

owned, that he did not consider himself bound to support the 75s. or any other price which had been proposed. But he wished, in order that the sense of the country should be better ascertained, that the Report should not be received till Monday seen night. He did not mean to say any thing more upon the subject of the measure now, but he conceived that what he proposed might probably save much useless discussion.

certainly did not consider the right hon. gentleman pledged to the principle of the measure, but fully entitled to oppose it, if he thought proper, in its progress through the House. He did not see why any delay beyond Wednesday should be necessary.

observed, that a meeting at lord Liverpool's, where all the gentlemen were of one opinion on this subject, took two days to discuss it. [Cries of No!] At any rate they met on Tuesday and adjourned to Thursday to decide on the subject, and they were on both occasions all of the same opinion except the hon. baronet (sir W. Curtis), who was present as a target to be shot at. Why, then, if a meeting, where all were on the same side, took so long to decide on the question, might not the members of the House of Commons, who were somewhat divided, be allowed a week to make up their minds?

observed that this was not a new measure. He could not conceive that a longer period than that proposed could be wanted, to enable gentlemen to make up their minds as to which of the two prices, 75 or 80 shillings, should be adopted. He did not see any precipitation of the measure in the course which he had taken.

stated, that had he known the measure was to have been so precipitated, he should have thought it his duty to divide the House. By the present course, he considered that the House would stand pledged to adopt either the one or the other of the prices mentioned. At all events, he hoped the farther consideration of the measure would be postponed to a later period than Wednesday.

stated, that on Wednesday the measure would only be in its first stage, and the decision of the House would only be a preparatory step to bringing in a Bill, which would not prevent it from putting every interval it might think convenient, between the different stages of its progress. No more time had been allowed last year, and the receiving of the Report on Wednesday would not be more than the forms of the House required.

thought, whatever might be said to the contrary, that on Wednesday the House was to be pledged to some particular point. Those who had thus bound themselves would afterwards find it awkward to turn themselves round in the other stages of the Bill. It would be wiser in his Majesty's ministers, if they wished to conciliate opinions, to allow an ampler time, before the pledging vote of the House was called upon to be given. If they were willing to grant delays after that vote had passed, why should they not think them convenient before?

suggested Friday, as a day which might meet with the approbation of both sides. Should the House not agree to the Resolutions, of course the measure would fall to the ground.

acknowledged, that the measure would fall to the ground if the Resolutions should not pass; but should they be first agreed to in the committee, the measure would not yet be carried. He illustrated this argument by the usual course adopted in resolutions of finance.

thought that, on looking at the circumstances of the case, it was clear that no gentleman was bound to the principle of the resolutions. As to the amendment proposed with respect to the period of receiving the Report, Friday was already engaged. Gentlemen had argued as though it had been the intention of his Majesty's ministers on Wednesday next to take an ulterior step. That was not the case. What they proposed then to do, was only to put the House in the very position in which it now stood, and empower it to do what might this evening be done. And yet it was called precipitating a measure, to defer till Wednesday what might have been completed that night.

could not conceive any valid objection to the postponement required, nor could he suppose that any inconvenience would result from acceding to it.

observed, that a very sound discretion ought to be exercised, because unnecessary delay would be inconvenient. The question to be decided upon this subject was, whether restriction or non-restriction should exist with regard to the importation of corn; and it was most material from various considerations, that this question should be decided as soon as convenient. As to opportunities for consideration and discussion, those would be amply afforded in the several stages of the measure. Should the decision of Wednesday be in favour of the principle of the Resolutions, no bill could be brought in until Friday or Monday, and thus a sufficient interval would offer to examine the merits of the proposition.

thought it desirable that the House should, as soon as convenient, come to a vote upon this important question. Suspense upon the subject must be highly injurious, and it would be satisfactory to the country to know the opinion of the House, as soon as that opinion could be conveniently pronounced. Considering the time which had elapsed, and the discussions which had taken place upon the merit of the main principle of those Resolutions, he could not see why the House should not be prepared to express its opinion on Wednesday.

observed, that a proposition to allow the importation of foreign corn at all times, subject, however, to the payment of some duty which should afford the domestic grower an advantage over the foreigner, would not be so objectionable; but that he could not assent to any measure for the utter exclusion of foreign corn.

objected in to the project for excluding foreign corn as a permanent measure of legislation; but he should have no objection to give temporary relief to the farmer, while he would avoid any alteration of the corn laws. He deprecated the idea of pledging the House on Wednesday next, and the more so, as it would require farther time to examine the merits of the Resolutions, which it did not seem so easy to understand.

thought the merits of the question under consideration were fully understood, both within that House and without, and therefore he should protest against useless procrastination.

It was then agreed, that the Resolutions should be re-committed pro formâ on Monday, and the Report be received on Wednesday.