said, he should certainly feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the Bill, by moving that instead of its being now read, it should be read that day six months. The Bill would be most unjust in its operation upon the gaols of the city of London, because as the fees in those goofs were to be abolished, and not in the King's-bench, Fleet, and Marshalsea prisons, the consequence would be that prisoners would remove themselves from the latter to Negate and the other city gaols, which would thus become over-crowded.

explained the reason why he excepted these prisons. They were not prisons belonging either to a particular town or county, but generally appertaining to the country at large. Even in those gaols, however, he was no advocate for the continuance of fees. He had already given notice of a commission to inquire into them, which he hoped would terminate with their entire abolition. Upon the present occasion he did not like to clog his Bill with additional clauses, which might endanger its progress, as was the case last session; but it would be competent for any member to submit any clause which he might deem expedient. With reference to the additional expense, which it was said the Bill, in its present form, would entail upon the city of London, he had reason to think it greatly exaggerated; and notwithstanding the panegyric which had been on a former occasion pronounced on the state of the city gaols, he had no hesitation in saying, that great improvements were still essentially necessary. In some the allowance of food was scanty and wretched; in others no religious attendance was afforded. Here the hon. gentleman referred to the report on this subject, and showed, that notwithstanding the opinion of the common council in 1810, the magistracy of London took no effective steps until the following year. In the severe winter of 1810, he had himself witnessed in one of those prisons the utmost wretchedness: in a small room containing thirteen, six were without bedding or covering of any kind. The hon. member also remarked upon the laxity of morals which prevailed in those receptacles.

agreed in the principle of the Bill; his only objection was, that it did not embrace all the gaols of the metropolis. The late crowded state of the prisons, which alone caused the privations complained of, arose from the number of persons confined (and mostly committed by their own friends) for the purpose of claiming the benefit of the Insolvent Act. However scanty the allowance to prisoners might have appeared to the hon. gentleman, he could assure him it amounted to a very large sum.

explained the nature of the Bill. In many counties or England the fees were already abolished in the gaols, and the effect of the present Bill would be to abolish them generally. The three prisons alluded to were not included, because they had nothing to do with county rates; they belonged to particular courts, and persons from every part of the empire might be transfer red to them. He had discoursed with the keepers of many prisons upon the utility of fees, and among others with Mr. Newman, who was a man of great humanity of character; they all agreed that they might be abolished to great advantage; and Mr. Newman said, their only use, if any, was, that prisoners who could not pay their fees sometimes behaved the better, in hopes that the keeper might forgive them. That, however, was but a partial effect, that might, in some instances, result from the practice, and it ought not to be held out as a general principle. The hon. aldermen had done their duty to their constituents, by standing up against a measure of general benefit to the kingdom—[a laugh]—and he hoped the House would do its duty by protecting a prisoner who had cleared himself by law, but who was prevented from regaining his liberty, except by the forbearance of his gaoler, or the casual bounty of benevolent individuals.

explained, and said, he would not oppose the Bill, if it included all the prisons of the empire.

said, the King's-bench, Fleet, and Marshalsea prisons had been exempted, from the peculiarity of the circumstances in which they happened to exempted, from the peculiarity of the circumstances in which they happened to be placed; but he had no doubt, when that was understood, some regulation respecting them would be adopted.

contended that the hon. mover had not done justice to the city of London, by omitting to mention that a new prison was now building for the reception of debtors, which would prevent the other prisons from being so crowded. The corporation of the city had endeavored to meet the feelings of the House, but it appeared they were still under its displeasure.

thought that much blame attached to the city magistrates. Want of room did not surely involve a paucity of food and fuel.

, in explanation, said, that each prisoner in Newgate was allowed fourteen ounces of bread per day, and a certain proportion of meat, which depended, however, upon the number of prisoners.

said, that when he made inquiries he found that instead of fourteen ounces of bread the prisoners received only ten, and that instead of a certain proportion of meat, they very often received none.

said, the prisoners always had their proper allowance, sometimes more and sometimes less [a laugh]. What he meant was, that the number of prisoners who received the allowance was sometimes more and sometimes less, and that the distribution to each prisoner was in proportion. He contended also that the prisons in London were better conducted than in any other part of the kingdom.

The Bill was then read a second time.

said, that he rose with great reluctance to notice a misrepresentation of his speech last night, on the subject of the Bill of a right hon. baronet, for inquiring into abuses in the Courts of Justice. If the error in a morning paper, in which his sentiments had been misrepresented, were suffered to pass unnoticed by him, it would be calculated to give offence to the feelings of others as it had done to his own. He was much surprised on being told this morning, before he had read any of the papers, that one of them had reported him to have admitted the existence of abuses in a particular department, meaning that of the masters in Chancery, and to have said, that he voted on that ground for the proposed commission of inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman then read the whole of the misrepresentation he complained of; and observed, that so far from having acknowledged the discovery of any abuses, he had said that no ground had been made out of the existence of abuses in that department, and if any gentleman could prove their existence, the measure should have his vote. It must be in the recollection of most of the gentlemen who now heard him, that this was the very reverse of what he had said in the last evening's debate, when, in consequence of an allusion made to his vote on the former occasion, he had risen to explain the grounds of it. He had then, as before, condemned the inquiry, as not being called for by any abuses either proved, or distinctly alleged to exist, but gave the reason why he had voted for it, after having expressed that opinion against it. It was because, finding some insinuations which seemed to point at the office of the masters in Chancery, among those in which abuses were supposed to exist; he had invited explanation on that point, and had declared, that if any gentleman would assert the existence of abuses in that quarter, he would vote for the inquiry. And an hon. and learned member having, in reply, declared his belief in such abuses, though not as proceeding from the masters themselves, he had thought it became him to vote for the motion. Such was the explanation he had given the last night; and it was, to be sure, a very extraordinary misrepresentation of it, to state that he had admitted the existence of the abuses in question. It was to make the challenging inquiry a confession of the charge. It was virtually to make him impute blame, not to himself only, but to his colleagues, than whom men of purer honour were not to be found in his Majesty's dominions. It was impossible that he could pass over such a misrepresentation unnoticed; yet as he did not suppose it to be wilful, he would content himself with having thus publicly corrected it.

, assuming that the new taxes proposed would be sufficient for the payment of the charge of the loan for the present year, wished to know from the right hon. gentleman, if it was likely they would continue to be sufficient for the provision for the charges on the loans that would be required during the four years that it was calculated the winding-up of the arrears of the war would take, or whether the country was to be liable to additional taxes for that purpose?

replied, that under all the circumstance of the case it was impossible for him to give a definitive answer, but such as he could afford he would be happy to make to the hon. gentleman. The plan which, he had stated the other evening certainly proceeded on the supposition, that instead of performing that operation at once, the funding of the arrears of the war should be diffused over four years. The taxes which he had proposed were calculated to be sufficient, not only to the payment of the charge on the loan of the present year, but to the payment of the charge on the loans during the four years to which he had alluded; at the same time some addition might be necessary. It was to be considered, that the peace establishment would be on a more expensive scale than it had ever been on former occasions, and that during the four years there would be a necessity to provide for the charges on a loan of 4 or 5 millions in each year.

was desirous to know if he was to understand that the six millions derived from the prolonged war taxes were to be so derived during the four years, together with the five millions of new taxes. At the close of the winding up, what would become of those six millions?

said, that the six millions certainly formed a part of the 13 millions revenue which he had recommended to be raised. It would be for the wisdom of parliament, at a future period, on a comparison of what might appear to be the necessary establishment of that period with the means possessed by the country to maintain it, to determine on the disposition of those six millions.

observed, that the right hon. gentleman then supposed that the war taxes in question would continue to produce six millions.

replied in the affirmative.

observed, that parliament were in consequence voting supplies, not for the present year alone, but for four years to come. When did the right hon. gentleman mean to inform the House of the extent of the peace establishment which he intended to advise?

said, that he would take the earliest opportunity that circumstances would allow, of making a particular statement on that subject. As to the supply, parliament were merely voting the supply for the present year.

, adverting to a rumour which he described as prevalent, of an intention on the part of his Majesty's government to appropriate a part of the taxes now to be raised to the purpose of repairing the fortresses of Belgium, begged to know whether or not that was the fact?

of the Exchequer replied, that it was impossible for him at that time to give an answer to the hon. baronet's question.

The Resolutions were then agreed to.

opposed the motion. The country, after a war of unparalleled taxation, and in, the moment of anticipated plenty, ought not, he said, to be disappointed by such a measure as that proposed. He did in his conscience believe that the sentiments of the great majority of the people on this subject—an opinion formerly expressed so strongly-remained unaltered; and that they looked with fearful apprehension to any change being made in the corn laws.

was convinced, that it was from the necessity of postponing the measure last year that it was lost. An hon. member had stated, that this procrastination had given an opportunity for a farther investigation of the subject, and that he thought it likely to be more satisfactory. He was convinced, however, that the people at large remained much in the same sentiment as they entertained last year, and this sentiment was again expressed by the innumerable petitions which crowded the table of the House. There was scarcely a large town in the kingdom which had not sent up its prayer, that no alteration might be made in the Corn Laws. They had seen no other alteration take place, in consequence of the labours of the committee, but an increase in the price of bread; and though it had been said, that those who were guided by reason, rather than by feeling, were generally right, he was of an opinion directly the contrary; for in whatever related to the subsistence of human life, those who were guided by feeling were sure to have reason on their side. The House being composed of the great body of landholders in the kingdom, and the representatives of the people, must come to the discussion with feelings of another kind. He did not mean to say, that there would be any bias on their minds on this account, but only that having an interest in the land, their feelings could not be expected to be the same as those of the populace at large, who subsisted on the produce of the land. It appeared a most extraordinary part of the measure, that the House was called on to prevent the importation of corn into the country for three months; and that there was still to be an importation going on under the warehousing system. As corn was a very perishable commodity, he conceived that when it was imported into this country, to be kept in warehouses till the price attained a certain height, there must be some provision made for the importer, who would otherwise sustain a dead loss upon his property. Unless some clause were introduced to this effect, the consequence would be most serious, and no persons would be induced to import. But this might be said to be only one of the minutia of the subject. On the principal point, it would, in his opinion, be most judicious in government to reduce the importation price to 72s. which would be a sufficient protection to the farmer. The first consideration should be the interest of the consumer. The main bodies of the people were the consumers, and not the growers. It was justly observed by Adam Smith, that the questions which must always be acquiesced in were those which related to religious opinions and the necessaries of life. He was confident that the price now proposed was laid too high. It was impossible that the importation of foreign corn could produce the injury described; for it had been admitted and proved that the whole annual quantity did not exceed one-fortieth part of the consumption; it was impossible that this one part could affect the price of the thirty-nine, though that of the latter might affect the price of the one part. There were, certainly, some causes which had operated of late, to affect the quantity consumed; one of these was the return of the great number of prisoners of war, who amounted to about 100,000. This must have had some effect. Another cause was the number of persons who had gone from this country to visit the continent, and who might amount to 50 or 60,000. The combined effect produced by this change must have produced more effect than had been counteracted by the importation of foreign corn. If this was the case, we were likely to have bread cheaper; and if encouragement was given to the landed interest to continue the price at 80s. it could not be expected that they would make any great reduction in their rents. He thought that this was no more a time to settle the price of bread or rent, than to settle what should be the expenses of the peace establishment, which the right hon. gentleman opposite had said could not be ascertained for four or five years to come. He was firmly of opinion that before the House should separate for the summer recess, the price of bread, which we were now eating at less than a shilling, would be nearer eighteen-pence. He hoped the House would agree to go into a committee on the subject, wherein clause by clause might be discussed.

intended no opposition to the present motion, for he thought the measure would be best discussed in a committee. The House had determined upon having a statement upon this subject; and not being prepared to make one themselves, had referred it to a committee, who had sitting and presented the House with their report: and now the House were called upon to say, "I will shut my ears to your statement, and take up the case as it is, and not discuss whether any alteration in the price of corn be necessary or no." He was as anxious for the low price of bread as his hon. friend, but he differed with him upon the propriety of the present division.

said, that, conscious of the rectitude of his intentions, no consideration upon earth should induce him to withdraw his present intention of dividing the House.

thought it necessary, from the situation in which he stood, to say a few words. As he agreed in principle with the hon. gentleman, he regretted he should not be able to vote with him; but understanding the resolutions were to be taken into discussion in detail, so as to afford an opportunity of explaining their principles, he agreed in the propriety of going into a committee. Thinking, however, the cheapness of corn essential to the prosperity of the country, he should endeavour so to modify the resolutions (if they were suffered to pass at all), as to render them less mischievous; and if they could not be so modified, he should oppose the whole Bill on the principle stated by the hon. gentleman.

said, that his opinions were very similar to those of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He opposed the proposition in the first instance; but as the House had got into the middle of the discussion, he did not think it would be fair to interrupt it.

declared, that it was impossible for him to go to the division upon this question without stating the mischief's that he thought likely to result from the hon. gentleman's perseverance in opposing the Speaker's leaving the chair. One thing every body must be aware of, namely, that on such a subject as the present, any thing like heat or irritation was most earnestly to be deprecated. What his opinions on the main question were, he would at that time abstain from men-Caning; but he thought it unfair by the step taken by the hon. gentleman to create false impressions, and to force persons to vote in apparently direct contradiction to their principles, because that apparent contradiction was involved in their disinclination to interrupt the discussion of the subject. He hoped the hon. gentleman was not inexorable. If, however, he should prove so, he hoped he would find himself in a very small minority indeed.

said, that if this were the only opportunity of opposing the principle of the proposed measure, he might perhaps vote with the hon. gentleman who opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair; but as there would be many opportunities for taking the sense of the House on that principle, he should certainly support the original motion.

lamented the perseverance of the hon. gentleman, and declared, that whatever might be his opinions on the main question, he must vote for the committee.

expressed a high respect for the hon. gentleman who opposed the motion, but felt that he could not vote with him. Probably his sentiments on the main subject were not less decided than those entertained by the hon. gentleman; but in dividing against him, he did not conceive that he was departing from consistency. He came down to the House with a sincere desire of hearing the question fully discussed; for however strong might be his own opinions, he thought it due to the importance of the subject to hear the opinions of all who had considered it, and to ascertain the various modes in which the evidence which had been adduced had struck various minds.

The House then divided:

The House then resolved itself into the committee.

thought as the three first Resolutions were not objected to, it might perhaps be as well to pass them at once, and take the discussion on the general question when they came to the fourth.

said, his observations would be founded on the fourth Resolution, which brought the whole subject before the House.

The three first Resolutions were then read and agreed to. On the fourth Resolution, which fixes the prices at which wheat shall be imported, Mr. Rose and Mr. Baring offered to address the committee. The chairman named Mr. Rose.

reminded the chairman that his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) having risen to speak before the right hon. gentleman proposed to pass his three first Resolutions, might be regarded as having possession of the committee.

denied that the hon. gentleman had been in possession of the committee. He had offered himself thus early, in consequence of his having been called on by the hon. gentleman on a former day. He was very willing, however, to give way to him, as he had no wish to trespass on the committee before they were perfectly at leisure to hear him.

then said, that he would certainly have given wavy to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), if it had not been understood that it was his intention to move an amendment to the Resolutions now before the committee. Had he known, however, that the right hon. gentleman would use the same line of conduct which he followed last year, for the sake of the cause in which he felt an interest, he would have left the right hon. gentleman to have taken that part which he now entered upon himself. But he had seen with regret, that on a former night no part was taken in the debate by the right hon. gentleman, and it was natural for him to conclude that he had altered his opinion.

His own opinion upon the principle upon which the measure before the House proceeded remained unaltered. The subject had been before the House last session and the session before, and nothing had passed, to induce him to alter the opinion which he then delivered respecting the course which he considered it was the particular duty of the House to pursue as to the general principle. But he was willing to allow that there existed a considerable state of distress in the agricultural interest of the country at the present moment, arising from a derangement of the circulation and property of the country. Whatever, therefore, might be his opinion as to the general principle, it was his duty to endeavour to find a remedy, if possible, to what he considered a temporary distress. Though in a state of commercial distress, it would be improper and impolitic to give to individuals Exchequer-bills for the purpose of trading on them; yet if in a distress of the nature of the present, by affording an occasional remedy, the fall might be broken of the reduction of prices, and the individuals might be saved, the attempt ought certainly to be made. It appeared to him that something might be done without injuring the general interests of the country, and without violating those general principles, which he should be the last person in the world to wish to depart from. He wished at present to deliver a few observations on the general principle itself, because that was the point which, in his apprehension, would be principally discussed that night. He was aware that there was a serious intention entertained by a considerable majority to force through the measure in its present shape; and he would therefore take the liberty of now submitting a few remarks on that subject to the committee.

The state of the case was this: after a war unexampled for its extent and the exertions which had been made, the return of peace had been productive of great confusion in almost all our transactions, and it might well have been expected to be so. No consequences could have been with more certainty anticipated from a return of peace, than that some distress would take place. Any person who had at all reflected on the subject, must have foreseen, from the value to which land had risen in consequence of a number of circumstances, that on the return of peace, a great change would necessarily take place. Knowing the great influence which the land proprietors had in both Houses of Parliament, it was natural for those persons who were feeling the effects of this change to apply for relief from their difficulties. And the question now was, whether upon this representation of the case, the House were to infringe the principle by which the commerce and industry of the country was regulated, and to give the persons petitioning a remedy which would have the effect of deranging the whole labour of the country, and the scale by which alone our manufactures could be enabled to meet others with success in the market of Europe. The question was, whether they were to afford such relief to the agricultural interest as would enable landed proprietors to keep up the rents and value of lands, and the price of food, beyond that at which it would naturally be at. This was certainly an artificial system for the country to be in, though, as was stated by the right hon. gentleman who opened the business, it was not a new system. It was desirable that they should understand the extent to which the legislature had protected the landed interest of the country at the expense of the consumers. He would attempt to show this, and what they were called on farther to do by the measure now before them. The population of Great Britain, that was, of England and Scotland, he would take at 12½ millions. Dr. Adam Smith had stated our consumption of food at nearly a quarter of bread-corn for each individual, and as much of other corn for cattle, and for being converted into drink. Supposing this estimate of Dr. Smith to be correct, be should say, the price of the quarter of wheat in this country, if there were no corn laws, would be something about 45s. This was evident from the average price of France and the other countries opposite to us. Wheat might be brought to the ports of Flanders and France, at about 40s. a quarter. On an average of a number of years, it had been, in France and Flanders, about 40s. or rather something under that. Allowing 5s. a quarter for transmission, we should have it in England at about 45s. if there were no corn laws; because we were so geographically situated that the price of corn here would always be the average of the surrounding countries, from our facilities of water-carriage and other circumstances. The present importation price was 65s. a quarter; and there was a difference of 20s. a quarter, which was paid for the protection of the landed interest. This difference, on the consumption of our whole population, made a sum of 12½ millions of pounds. But then to this must be added the other corn employed for cattle and for drink, &c. which was estimated by Dr. Smith at the half of the former, or 6,250,000l. making in the whole 18,750,000l. This was a tribute paid by the consumers for the support of the landed interest.

He was not going into the question just now, whether they put this sum into their pockets, or whether this sum was necessary to enable them to grow corn. He was sure, however, he was stating the fact under the mark, when he stated this bounty at about 18,750,000l. The proposition of now adding 15s. to the quarter, or raising the import price from 65s. to 80s. would give an additional 14 millions, making in all 32,750,000l. paid by the consumers to the persons who grew their food. His wish was, that the question should be fully and fairly discussed, without having recourse to any thing of an inflammatory nature. He did not wish to be understood as stating that this was so much into the pockets of the landed interest; but, undoubtedly, he had in this estimate rather undervalued the amount paid by the consumers to the agricultural interest. If they were to take it in any other way, they would obtain as high a result. The number of acres in an arable state amounted at least to 60 millions, Every person who had read the reports would see, that if no alteration took place in the corn laws the rent of land must at least be diminished to the extent of 10s. an acre. But the pasture land must also be taken into the estimate. The question was, therefore, whether the country gentlemen should give up 10s. an acre all over the kingdom, or whether the consumers were to pay to the growers a sum of 40 or 50 millions a year beyond what they would pay in other circumstances. It was impossible to look at this subject without seeing that the growers of corn in this country received a bounty on agriculture which the agriculturists of no other part of the world enjoyed. If he were to look at the condition of the gentlemen who possessed great landed property in this country, and to compare it with that of landed proprietors in other countries, he could not avoid seeing that the laws protected them in a peculiar manner, and gave them a greater advantage for their land than was obtained in other parts of the world. In France, for instance, might be seen persons of large landed property, living on the produce of that property, in the manner of the country gentlemen, and even the nobility, in this island in former times. But it was only in this country where landed gentlemen could go to great towns, and have great disposable incomes to spend wherever they chose. Any person who had considered the relative situation of gentlemen of landed property in this and in foreign countries, could not but be struck with the advantages they enjoyed here.

But he would leave this subject of an additional bounty, for the purpose of drawing the attention of the committee to the great importance of the question. It was true, that the commercial and manufacturing interests had not declined during the existence of this system, but had thriven, on the contrary, to a great degree. But then, the system might be carried too far. Though with the high price of labour, arising from the high price of food in this country, compared with foreign countries, our manufactures had not hitherto suffered, the difference might be carried so far as at last to destroy all competition with foreign manufacturers. He did not mean to say whether this effect would be produced by the additional 15s. a quarter, or what sum the industry of the country could possibly bear; it was certain that the price of labour might at last be raised so high as utterly to destroy competition with foreigners. By adopting the principle now contended for by the landed interest the most serious mischief might be done. Here he could not help adverting to a most whimsical sort of evidence adduced before the Lords, and to be found in their report. One could hardly conceive the nature of the understanding that should require an explanation of the proposition, that the price of labour was affected by the price of subsistence. This proposition was laid down by every writer who had written on the subject. He had heard that the evidence alluded to by him, was introduced by a noble lord (Lauderdale) remarkable for the subtlety of his distinctions in matters of political economy. If any gentleman should go into this subject, he might afterwards also go into it; but he could not conceive that any evidence adduced to controvert the proposition he had just stated, would have any effect on the House. Whatever may have taken place in particular branches at particular times, nothing was more certain than that labour, in the long run, must always depend on the price of the means of subsistence. That the price of agricultural labour, in particular, was affected by the price of the means of subsistence was to be found in every part of the evidence. Whether they received this as the wages of labour, or in the shape of an allowance under the poor laws, it was always so much bread. Mr. Bennet told them, that the labourer had so much bread, either from the farmer or the parish, and 3d. a week for luxuries. There could, therefore be no doubt as to agricultural labour. It was certain that the importation price would bring the price of bread and corn in the market along with it. It had been argued by his hon. friend near him (Mr. Western), that this consequence would not follow. His hon. friend had stated that on his conscience, if he thought the measure would have the effect of making bread dearer, he would not recommend it; but he was convinced it would make bread cheaper. He believed his hon. friend had sincerely spoken his conviction on this subject; but he could not conceive the constitution of that person's understanding who thought the measure would have any such effect. It had been stated by the agricultural interest, that if they could not get 80s. a quarter for their wheat, they would be under the necessity of throwing up their lands—that they could not live on less. If the measure, then, were to have the effect of making bread cheaper, it would produce the dire effect of making the agriculturists throw up their lands. They had at present 66s. and they contended that this ought to be raised to 80s. But this measure would have the effect of bringing the farmers to that state of distress from low prices, that they could not cultivate their lands, and then what became of the question of the independent supply which we were to derive only from ourselves? We should then come to the horrible situation of being dependent on foreign countries for the food which our own farmers could no longer raise. But no man could look to this measure and say, that it would have the effect of producing cheap food.—If it were stated that it would have the effect of giving a fair remunerating price to the farmer, and that it was for the general welfare that such a remuneration should be afforded him, then he could understand this. But when persons contended, that a relief should be given, that, according to their own showing, would have the effect of aggravating the distress, he wished to ask them how, if the prices should be low, the farmers were to live?

But laying aside this general reasoning out of their own statement, he would ask what was the state of this country? Of one which consumed more than it grew, the price of corn must depend on the rate at which the excess can be either brought from abroad, or obtained by extraordinary means from land which would not otherwise be applied to the growing of corn: It was said by gentlemen on the other side of the question, that there would be no excess, and that this country could grow as much corn as was necessary for our own supply, but that we were prevented from doing this by the present low prices; that there were cold clay lands which could not remain under perfect cultivation at these low prices; and that, if this measure should not be carried, these lands must be thrown out of tillage. But if, on this subject, there could be any doubt as to the prices in the market following the importation price, they had only to look into the history of the corn laws to have it removed. On looking back they would find that an alteration on the importation price had always produced a corresponding and instantaneous change on the price in the market. Whenever they raised the protection to the grower, it was found that this rise was invariably followed by an increase of price to the consumer. For the five years preceding 1764, when an alteration took place, the price of the quarter of wheat was 1l. 10s. 2d.; and for the five years from 1764 to 1769 it was 2l. 2s. 2d. The raising of the importation price in 1764 was therefore instantly attended with a great corresponding rise to the consumer. That no rise of price took place for a long period before, was owing to government leaving alone the laws; for no material alteration in them had taken place for about 65 years. In 1764, however, it at once rose from 1l. 10s. to 2l. 3s. Prices continued nearly the same from 1764 to 1794, during which period no alteration of the importation price had taken place. In 1794 the importation price was again altered. For the five years before 1794 the price was 2l. 7s. the quarter; and for the five years from 1794 to 1799, it was 3l. 4s. Thus it would be found that a rise of price to the consumer had invariably followed every alteration in the importation price. Whether or not the farmer could live at the present importation price, or what further protection should be afforded to the farmer, was another question, and he would come to it presently; but no person could doubt that the raising the import price of corn would be attended with a rise in the price of corn in the market.

Gentlemen had taken different views of the causes of importation and exportation of corn at different periods of our history. The great cause of the increased importation of late years, was the increase in the population of the country, the increase of our manufactures, and our different establishments. From this, and not from other circumstances, we had become a great importing country; and yet, notwithstanding we had been an importing country, the prices had always continued high. This made quite against the argument, that when importation of foreign corn was suffered, prices would be low. For the last twenty years, we had continually imported corn; and the excess was greater than at any time before on record. We had never before imported one half of what we had imported during the last 20 years. One would think, on the principles of the proposes of the measure, that this excess would have had the effect of discouraging our agriculture. Now, what was the fact? There never was such an improve men in our agriculture, as had taken place during the last 15 or 20 years. This not only disproved the argument, that importation was injurious to our agriculture, but it showed also that the increased importation had arisen from an increased population, and not from any detriment to our own agriculture.

But then, according to the gentlemen on the other side of the question, it was of the utmost importance that we should be independent on foreign countries for a supply of food; and we should, of course, by keeping out foreign coin, force into cultivation all the lands in the kingdom, at whatever expense, for the sake of being independent. Here he would observe that no government which had the least regard for the welfare and prosperity of the people entrusted to their care, ever went on so, absurd a principle as to force in this manner, what gentlemen were pleased to call an independent supply. This was acting in direct opposition to the wise provision by which nature, in varying the prime of different countries, had made them all dependent on one another. Some countries were suited to corn; other countries possessed mines, fisheries, and other means by which men could gain a subsistence, but were not adapted for corn, if Malta and Norway had in this manner taken it into their heads to make themselves independent of foreign countries for a supply of food, they might long have scratched their barren rocks and barren hills, before they could have produced one-tenth part of the subsistence which they procured in exchange for their fisheries, and the other branches of industry which nature had placed within their reach. Undoubtedly, they might have, in this way, forced some land into-cultivation which would otherwise have been neglected. In Malta the people even went so far as to bring soil from Egypt, and spread it on their rocks. There was no limit to the perseverance of Shuman industry; but on that principle of forcing, a supply from your own soil, for your own population, your population never can exceed your own produce, and the consequence, therefore, of, that would be, that you must cut down your population to suit your corn, instead of regulating the supply of corn by the population. This was not lengthening the bed to the man, but shortening the man to the bed. The consequence of this system on our own country would be this—though it was not like Malta or Norway, unfit for the production of food, yet it was in many cases in an analogous situation. Scotland, for instance, was not fitted for the growth of wheat. In some parts of the south of Scotland, he was aware that the cultivation of wheat was practiced; but in general the country was naturally ill adapted for it. What would be thought of the folly of the people of Scotland—a people remarkable for their ability and wisdom—if on this principle no persons were to be permitted to live in that country except they brought meal and bread with them? Instead, however, of acting in this manner, a country, comparatively speaking barren, was occupied by a people full of industry and enterprize, who brought from every quarter of the world that which nature had refused at home. In the southern parts of England there were many districts somewhat in the same situation; and the greatest part of the country was more unfavourable for agriculture than many of the countries on the continent. It was evident that we had more bad harvests, for instance, than there were in the country over-against us. By this system of forcing an independent supply, we should be abandoning all those resources which we derived from our industry in every part of the empire. Whether this additional 15s. on the quarter would drive the cotton, iron, and other manufactures out of the country, he would not pretend to say; but this he would say, that every advance on the price of corn, and consequently in the price of labour, was giving an advantage to our competitors in the market of Europe, and that we ought to be on our guard how we hazarded any measure which might have the effect of ruining any branch of our industry, and thus sacrificed the means which had already contributed so much to our wealth and prosperity.

The effect of the very high price obtained for grain within the few last years, had been, not only to bring new lands into cultivation, but it had had the advantage of introducing improved modes of tillage, by which the land already brought into employment was rendered much more productive. No pains, no labour, no expense need be spared, a farmer might make his fields like the ground of the most highly cultivated gardens, if he were adequately remunerated, by the price of grain bearing a proportion to the expenses he incurred. He had heard that one large farmer had been obliged to give up his system of hand-hoeing in consequence of the depression in the value of corn; but if the gentlemen who supported this measure proceeded, a system of hand-raking might also be adopted, and farmers might even, at a future period, find it worth while to employ immense watering-pots for irrigating their land in seasons when there was a deficiency of rain. But while these experiments were making the consumer would be suffering, and the result must inevitably be to reduce the price of corn that had been raised by these artificial means to its proper level: we might then not only supply sufficient for the consumption of our own inhabitants, but again become a country exporting the surplus not required for our own maintenance, since the consumers themselves would, after a certain lapse of time, be destroyed by the effect of our own proceedings. Such were the general considerations that had induced him to persevere in the sentiments he had entertained and expressed in the last session of parliament: in the mean time he had endeavoured maturely to weigh the arguments on both sides; and the result was a confirmation in his original opinion, not only that it would be impolitic, but that it would be little short of madness and folly, to add to the bounty already afforded to the growers of corn.

But leaving these general principles on which the question might be safely decided, and admitting the foreign supply to the fullest extent, he begged to submit to the House a few observations, by which he thought he could establish, that the claims now made by the land-owners and farmers were unreasonable and unjustifiable. In fact, the more he entered into the detail of this subject, the more absurd and exorbitant did those claims appear. He wished for no evidence but that already before the House in the report of the select committee; for, notwithstanding the obvious bias with which the witnesses gave their testimony, they had made out a story that would be the ruin of the case they had been adduced to support. He did not mean to accuse them of being operated upon by any motive that was not extremely natural; but no man could read the testimony of a single individual, without discovering the fact, that his information received at least a colour from the influence of his own interest. In the year 1804, when a law was passed for the improvement of the situation of the farmer, he professed himself satisfied with what the legislature had done for him; and what, Mr. Baring begged to know, had since that period occurred to make it necessary that the House of Commons should again listen to his case? A great deal had been said in the committee, and out of it, regarding the augmented expenses to which the farmer was now exposed: the great increase in the price of labour, of manure, of implements, and of the other requisites for his occupation, had been much dwelt upon; but it became gentlemen who supported the other side of the question to show, what expenses he was now obliged to incur that would not be proportion ably diminished by the reduction of the price of bread? Had they done so, or was it possible that they should do so? And in this respect the excellent speech of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the subject to the House had been particularly defective. It scarcely required argument, for all persons must be aware that, excepting taxes, there was not a single expense to which a farmer was exposed, that would not be diminished in the same rate with the main article of subsistence. Horses ought not to be included, since they formed always a part of the stock of the land, and were often bred upon it; there were other charges of a lesser nature, but that which had been principally relied on in the House and before the select committee, was the article of manure. It was very unfortunate for those who opposed this measure that they had dwelt so much upon this particular item, for it was the article of manure that showed most unequivocally the absurdity of the argument. One of the hon. members for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand), on the former night, had said a great deal upon the expense to which farmers in his neighborhood had been put for soot, as a dressing for the land; but was it to be supposed that in time of peace no soot could be procured? Would no fires be lighted and no chimneys swept; and would it not follow as a consequence, that the price of the article would be diminished? Oil cake was another expense that a farmer incurred; but it had already fallen to nearly half its price, and the pressers would in future willingly sell it at any price, rather than procure for it no market at all. Stable dung would of course be increased in quantity, for if corn were so cheap, more horses would be kept by persons who before were not able to afford them, and it therefore appeared that manure would not only be greater in quantity, but much cheaper in price. But the main expense, to which the farmer was exposed, was that of labour; but it was not a little singular, that in the evidence, the agriculturists had made their calculations invariably upon a high price for labour and a low price for grain, so that the deduction was most unfair. There was no man who would venture to deny that the price of labour would be lowered by the fall of corn. Some of the questions put to the witnesses before the committee upon this point were rather extraordinary; one of them was asked, if the price of wheat were fixed at 80s. per quarter, and the charge for labour continued the same as at present, what would be the profit of the farmer? Mr. Webb, to whom it was proposed, of course could give no answer, and told the committee, in as civil a mode as possible, that they had required him to reply to an absurdity. Most of the evidence was adduced to prove that 80s. per quarter would be a fit price to be fixed, provided the prices of labour, of manure, and of implements, continued the same as at the present moment; but every gentleman who so contended ought also to slim how such contradictions were reconcilable, and how it was possible that the price of the various articles used in agriculture could remain unaltered.

After all the arguments had been adduced, assertions were resorted to by the committee; and the most extraordinary was, that the rent of the land had in truth nothing to do with the question. It was very easy for any set of gentlemen, in framing a report, to set down any statements they pleased, since no contradiction could at the time be given; but he would be glad to hear any hon. member rise in the House, and upon his own responsibility, in the face of the country, maintain that the amount of rent paid by the tenant, had actually no bearing or relation to the subject of discussion. In the documents before the House, one instance was given of Mr. Brodie, a great Scotch farmer, who rented land to the amount of 6,000l. per annum; some years ago he had only paid 2,000l. or 28s. per acre; and would it be seriously argued for a moment, that if from the rent of 6,000l. which he now paid, he were reduced by the effect of peace to 4,000l. it would not have a ma- terial operation upon the price of corn he should grow? He was convinced that only a moderate sacrifice on the part of the owners of land, would produce all the advantages sought by the present measure. Of the price of the crops it was said, that the portion that came to the landlord on the best soils, was one-third, on average soils perhaps one-fourth, and on the wet cold clays, so much talked of; only about one-fifth. No man would pretend that it was fit, by means of an act of parliament, to keep up an adventitious rent for the benefit of the owner of the soil; or that the House should be called upon to do more than to enable the farmer to proceed with the cultivation. The question was, what would so enable him? Of the 80s. per quarter he would calculate that the landlord obtained 20s. as his proportion, and the remainder went to the tenant for profit, and for the discharge of the expenses of tillage. Suppose instead of 20s. the owner of the land were to receive only 15s. and the profits and expenses of the tenant were to be reduced in the same proportion, one-fourth, that would leave 60s. as the price that ought to be named after which grain might be imported into the country, that is, if a farm were now let for 2,000l. a year, that the landlord should only receive 1,500l. in future; and it would, he admitted, be reasonable to reduce the profits of the tenant.

All men would acknowledge that the improvements in the situation, habits, and comforts of the tenants, had kept pace with those of the landlords. Formerly a farmer thought it a high luxury if he was rich enough to enjoy his ale; but now, on entering their houses, you were not only treated with a bottle of Port, but sometimes even with Madeira. The sons of these wealthy agriculturists were all fine gentlemen; instead of following the plough, they were following the hounds; and the daughters, instead of milking the cows, were using cosmetics to their hands, that they might look delicate, while strumming on the harpsichord. Supposing, however, all that he had hitherto advanced to be ill-founded, still, upon the shewing of the other side, the price of 80s. was too high, and could not be justified. Several witnesses before the select committee had given their opinions in favour of a lower estimate. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Crabtree had stated 75s. to be a fair price to be fixed, while Mr. Mann had descended as low as 72s. at which he conceived the farmer would be adequately remunerated; indeed, if it should come to the simple question, what was the price that ought to be named, beyond which importation should be allowed, he did not believe that any man who had considered the subject would hesitate a moment in rejecting the sum of 80s. That was admitted by many witnesses to be exorbitant.

He had now arrived at the last part of his subject. Upon the general principle on which he had first observed, he entertained no doubt; and upon the second part of his subject be was equally confident that the House would view it with very different eyes from those of the select committee, before it proceeded to legislate upon a matter of such incalculable importance. His object in troubling the committee that night, was to endeavour to persuade members that it would be more advisable to adopt some measure of a temporary nature, which might afford relief under those difficulties, the existence of which neither he nor any other man denied. It was impossible to refuse assistance under these circumstances; but it was the duty of parliament to take care that the aid was afforded in a manner not only effectual, but expedient. This might be accomplished by fixing the importation price, for a stated period, at a higher rate than corn at present bore, and it was most probable that the value of grain in this country would never be far above or below the sum fixed for its entrance into the country. Provided this relief were only of a temporary nature, it was of less consequence what was the amount fixed, whether 80s. or 70s.; but it was his wish that it should fall Jack by a gradual diminution.

The result of such a plan would be, that the farmer would be able to get rid of the produce at a fair price, while it would afford time for the expiration of the old, and give warning to those who might enter into new leases. He had a great objection to propping and bolstering up any system, whether mercantile or agricultural; and that it might not continue longer than was necessary, he should propose, as his first amendment, that the words for a time to be limited, should be inserted in the third Resolution. The other questions respecting the sum to be fixed for importation would afterwards be arranged, when it would be of less moment; and he believed that there were many gentlemen who would support him in the proposal of a temporary measure, although they might not concur in the price which it would be fit to name as the sum above which importation should be allowed. He regretted that the question had been agitated at the present moment, when the finances were so unsettled, and the public accounts so confused; when the circulation was so corrupted by paper currency, the evil of which, though attended with some advantages, had been augmented by the numerous country banks, and which would not be without its important influence upon the measure before the House. He concluded by moving his amendment for a temporary measure, intimating his intention of proposing 76s. as the sum above which corn might be obtained from foreign countries.

complimented the great body of land-owners, who, he argued, were liberal and moderate men, more anxious for the general welfare than for their own private emolument. He observed that the opinion of many of the witnesses was, that 80s. was not a sufficiently high price for the protection of the farmer, the produce of whose industry was burthened with so many imposts paid to the church, the king, and the poor. He enlarged on the advantage derived to the commonweal from an increase of arable land, and observed that Henry the 7th, a politic prince, took every possible step to prevent arable land from being laid waste, for land was only cultivated on account of some positive encouragement, pasture being always a certain profit, while the profit of tillage was uncertain. Lord Coke also, a man whose wisdom was proved in every word he wrote, and who wrote more than most men had read, in Tellingham's case, gave his opinion in favour of an increase of arable land, and observed, that the common law had given it the preference. More modern writers had enumerated the disadvantages, of throwing land into pasture, and had stated them to be "the lack of strong and able men for the King's service, the waste of populous villages, the decay of churches, and the neglect of God's service." Those gentlemen who had maintained that the quantity of butcher's meat would be increased by the land being thrown into pasture, must have been wholly unacquainted with the subject: since, from the green crops, and the large sums employed in raising them, had the butcher's meat produced on farms been wonderfully increased, and means afforded of maintaining the contest against France; since the navy could not otherwise have been supplied with beef and pork. Estates which had produced 100lbs. now produced 600lbs. of animal food, and more food for the cattle was now produced in winter than formerly was produced in summer. The increase of the rent of farms which had taken place of late years, arose in part from a real increase of value; as much capital had been expended by the tenants in improvements, and had, through that medium, gone to augment the property of the landlords. It was to be recollected, too, that the revenue of the government was more than equal to the whole rent of the land. The inhabitants of great towns, he thought, could not complain of the price of bread, as the hardship did not fall on them; but on the poor agricultural labourers. He did not wonder that the citizens of London should be clamorous against the proposed alteration in the corn laws, because they paid 30 per cent. for bread more than they ought to do, and than was paid at Exeter. It was the same with meat, which in London cost 10d. a pound, whilst it only cost in Exeter from 5d. to 6d. The House had heard a right hon. gentleman opposite called the Man of the People [a laugh]: but he held a book in his hand which contained much better reasoning than the pamphlet of the right hon. gentleman, it was the book of the marquis de Mirabeau, the friend of mankind. He had spent all last Sunday in taking that book to pieces, and it was one of the hardest works he had ever had—[a laugh]. It was one of the best books he had ever read, and he had extracted the substance of it, from which the members of the House might learn more in an hour, than nine-tenths of them had learnt in all their lives. The main point was this—"Make your soil as productive as you can; the productiveness of the soil is the only road to cheap bread." Whatever capital the farmers could be encouraged to expend in the land, the people would in the end partake of it. Those who opposed the encouragement of agriculture could only do so for some sinister and wilful purpose. It had been said, that the proposed measure would make labour dear, and depress the manufactures; it would be remembered, that on the India question it was asserted, that the British manufacturers could un- dersell the Indians, who lived on two pence a day. It was evident that this country owed its superiority in manufactures, not to the cheapness of provisions, but to the superiority of capital, talents, and machinery. If the reduced scale was adopted, the House would do more evil in an hour than could be repaired in an age.

supported the original resolution, and said he was surprised the two last so learned speakers had not mentioned the name of Ireland. He wished the House had been in possession of the sentiments delivered at a great public meeting of the county which he had the honour to represent, at which were present great numbers of the lay, spiritual, and other agricultural classes.—[a laugh.] That meeting had deemed it impossible that the agriculturists and manufacturers could have two distinct interests, and that an enemy to one class could not be a real friend to the other. There were one or two circumstances with respect to Ireland, which he wished to mention. That country had sent to Great Britain in 11 years, corn to the value of 11 millions; in the year 1812 alone, to the amount of 3 millions. Unless the legislature afforded encouragement, the land there could not continue to be cultivated, and that export would no longer take place; for to supply this country, land in that island had been brought into tillage, which was so stubborn, that it required six bulls [a laugh] to plough it. He should have approved of Sys rather than 80s. if the House would agree to it. And he thought it was of consequence that the measure should be permanent, since a certain market was of the utmost importance.

said, that after the very clear manner in which the measure had been opened by his right hon. friend, he had hoped that all the gentlemen who took part in the discussion would have abstained from examining it as a question of party, and above all, that they would have abstained from throwing out topics of inflammation. He was sorry to find that in this hope he had been somewhat disappointed. The gentlemen on the other side had attempted to narrow the question as with respect to those who took the side of it that he did, but to indulge themselves in a very wide field of discussion. They stated the question shortly to be one between the landholders and the whole community; and sometimes they put the land-owners on one side, and the poor on the other. He must deny that this was any thing like a fair statement of the case. He should contend that this was no question between the interest of the country gentlemen and the manufacturers, or between the landholders and the poor. When they talked of the whole community, he could not exactly see what they meant. Did they forget, that upon the land-holder depended the farmers, the labourers they employed in agriculture, and the different mechanics, and little shop-keepers in the country towns, that were supported entirely by the agricultural interests? If all the persons thus interested in the prosperity of agriculture were reckoned, he believed that the majority of the country would be found on the side of the question which he supported, and that those who were called in argument the whole community, would be found to be a minority.

When an hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) had stated that corn might be imported at 45s. a quarter, and that all the excess of price above that was a tax levied on the community for the benefit of the landholders, he was really surprised at hearing such an argument from a gentleman so acute and clear in his comprehension. What was that contiguous country from whose ports we were to be supplied at that price? It was France. It was therefore necessary to compare the situation of that country with that of Great Britain. France had a population of 26 or 27 millions, a revenue of about 35 millions, and a debt of 70 millions. In Great Britain (he should not speak of Ireland at present) the population was 12 millions and a half, the taxes 60 millions a year, and the debt between 8 and 900 millions. It therefore appeared that the people of France were taxed at the rate of less than 1l. for each individual, while the people of this country were taxed at the rate of 5l. for each. Under such unequal circumstances, it was impossible that there could be an equality of prices. The hon. gentleman had thought proper to make many remarks on the mode of expense of the farmers and their families. It appeared to him, however, surprising that he should have forgotten the growth of the wealth and magnificence of the trades-people within the same time. They, too, occasionally indulged themselves with wine as well as the farmers; but he was so far from being displeased at this, that he was happy to see the increasing wealth of the mercantile part of the community. He must deny the statement of the hon. gentleman that the land-holders of other countries resided more upon their estates than the land-holders of England. He believed that the very reverse was the fact. He believed that there was not a country upon earth where the landholders resided so much upon their estates. They there formed the connecting link between the crown and the people, and diffused blessings through the country in consequence of their residence, superior to what the land-owners of other countries did. And yet this was the class of people that it was now endeavoured to hold up to public odium.

An hon. gentleman who spoke on a former night (Mr. Marryatt) had professed the greatest disinterestedness in the capacity of a country gentleman, and had spoken of the great increase of rent on a farm that was in his family for a long time. This increase the honourable member seemed to think was too great, and therefore that it ought to be given up for the good of the country. Such conduct he would allow to be very disinterested. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) had stated the evidence on the report, as if no one had thought of a higher price than 80s. He might, however, see in that report, that Mr. Arthur Young, Mr. Wakefield, and others, did think of a higher price, and stated it. For his part, he could not attach much weight to the evidence of Mr. Mann, which had been so much relied on upon the other side. Mr. Mann was not a farmer, but a merchant (a very respectable man no doubt), but he was a merchant who had taken a farm. He had not stated the result of his experience, for he had none; but he had stated what he supposed that his experience would be in future, from the calculations that he had made. As to the taking off the property tax, he would allow, that that must make some difference, but not nearly so much as was generally supposed. On an average calculation of a farm of 100 acres, all the direct taxes, including the tenant's property tax, might be calculated at 18l. 1s. 4d. while the poor rates alone amounted to 33l. 19s. 2d. He would rate the tenant's property tax at 2s. 6d. an acre, at the very highest. Now, as the average of a wheat crop was at least three quarters to the acre, if we were to divide this half crown by three, it would appear that 10d. a quarter was as much as that property tax affected the price of wheat. The parochial taxes, on the other hand, might be considered as a charge of 2s. 10d. on the quarter. The removal of the property tax, besides, could not be considered as clear gains to the farmer. Other taxes were necessarily imposed in their place. The addition to the assessed taxes would be felt by the farmer, and, as he heard that they now drank port wine instead of ale, the new duty of 20l. a tun must also partly be paid by them.

In the depressed state of agriculture for the last twelve months, some relief was absolutely necessary. Numbers of persons had been turned out of employment, and the pressure of the poor-rates was become intolerable. It would be said by some that this depression was but temporary. Supposing even that it did proceed from temporary causes, that would not remove the burthen from the different parishes. Most enormous losses had been suffered in the last year; and if some speedy remedy was not administered by the wisdom and firmness of the legislature, the agricultural interests of the country might soon be completely ruined. It was not asking for a minimum of price, to ask for a price to be fixed at which foreign farmers might be allowed to import their corn, duty free. The price of corn in all the markets of England and Scotland was in a great measure governed by the price at Mark-lane. He believed it was perfectly true, as had been stated by one hon. gentleman, that it was the increase and improvement of our agriculture which principally enabled this country to get out of the desperate contest in which we had been so long engaged, with honour and success. Our agriculture could not be carried on upon an extended and improved scale but by the application of large capitals. It was impossible to give the farmers a remedy for what losses they had already met, but it was possible to save them from still greater losses. He believed that the country never yet sustained so great a loss as it would suffer now, if the legislature were not to interfere.

A great deal had been said against the improvement of poor lands. If such expressions were to go forth as the sentiments of the legislature upon the subject, it would cut up all improvement by the roots. The light lands would be first thrown out of cultivation into degenerate and inferior pasture. In many districts of the country a want of capital was still strongly felt; so slow was the application of capital to agriculture even where there had been encouragement. How much slower, then, would be the application of it, if it was pointedly discouraged by the legislature? When an hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) talked about attempting to cultivate sand and rocks, did he recollect what was the state of the county of Norfolk before the new and scientific system of agriculture had been introduced there? Had he forgotten what was due to the exertions of the late lord Townshend? Norfolk was now a pattern to other countries which were more favoured in their soil. From the improvements of agriculture, we might now see the progress of cultivation up the sides of hills, which had never before been ploughed. But what was to become of such land as that of Norfolk, if such employment of capital were discouraged? What, also, was to become of the comparatively poor land of Scotland, which of late presented such a grateful prospect? Every man who loved his country must be alarmed at the very idea of any retrograde motion in such a flourishing system; yet such was the threatened consequence of rejecting the measure under consideration, not only to England and Scotland, but to Ireland also, the adequate encouragement of whose agriculture was so essentially necessary to the prosperity, the tranquillization, and, without offence to the last speaker, he would add, to the civilization of a great part of its people.

But he wished now to come to the great question—What was the country from which the gentlemen on the other side expected to draw their supply? He thought that it could not be too often rung in the ears of the House, that that country was France. Previous to the Revolution France had not been an exporting country, but had become so through the destruction of many abuses, and the division of property during her political convulsions; and though she had supported enormous armies, she was perfectly cultivated every where, and highly productive. On this subject the noble lord read part of a letter from an English gentleman at Paris, who stated, that the price of corn was so low, that it must occasion the ruin of farmers in England, should importation continue to be allowed. Notwithstanding that France had been obliged to support armies to the amount of 800,000 men, the harvest had proved so abundant this year, that 144 pounds of wheat had sold in the market for 15 francs, or about 13s. of our money, and the legislature had taken some measures on the subject. He contended, that were our supplies to be derived from that quarter, not all the British navy could bring sufficient quantities to England, supposing peace with France should last several years: yet by the operation of causes above the power of man, a scarcity might take place in that country as well as here. What, then, would be the consequence of having suffered our agricultural resources to be diminished? For the long continuance of peace he placed the firmest confidence on the wise and virtuous Prince who had succeeded our bitter enemy, and on the moderation of the government of this country. But should we be driven into a war with France, her hostility would be tremendous, when she would find herself at once our enemy and our granary. He hoped, indeed, that even wars might in future be conducted upon more liberal principles than hitherto; but still he could not risk the entire subsistence of the nation on such a hope, nor be content to rely on the generosity of an enemy. The noble lord concluded with adverting to the wholesome advice contained in the old English toast, the plough, the loom, and the sail," and trusted that the day would never come when the plough should be degraded from its proper station. For should that day arrive, whatever might be the degree of our commercial prosperity, the best interest of the empire would be overthrown, our foreign commerce notoriously bearing scarcely the proportion of one-tenth to our internal trade. Therefore it behaved parliament to guard with peculiar care, the interest of our home market, of which agriculture was the main foundation and most solid support.

congratulated the gentlemen on the other side upon the able advocate they had obtained in his noble friend who had just set down. With respect to his own views upon this subject, he could assure the House that they had undergone no change whatever, and that he had no motive that could give any undue degree of bias to his judgment. He agreed with his noble friend, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) was not correct in stating that corn could be so cheaply exported from Frame, as the hon. gentleman could not have included in his calculation the expense which the French farmer must incur in conveying his corn to the ports for exportation; but he differed from his noble friend as to the degree of competition to be apprehended from French corn growers. He thought the hon. gentleman mistaken in two or three things which had fallen from him. The hon. gentleman had said, that 45s. was the natural price of the quarter of wheat in this country, for that in France it was only 40s. and that at that price the country paid a tax of 18,750,000l. for the protection of the agricultural interest. He must differ from the right hon. gentleman, and could not allow that the country paid any tax to the agricultural interest at such a price. Wheat was not at 40s. in France; and the expense of collecting it and bringing it to the ports from which it was to be exported, was certainly more than 5s. If, therefore, the importation was left entirely free, it would not reduce the price of wheat to 45s. and consequently the country would not pay any tax at that price. France had, no doubt, had a most redundant harvest: but still the apprehensions expressed in consequence of the low price of corn that harvest naturally produced, were, in his judgment, exceedingly exaggerated. But yet he was no advocate for the idea of leaving the English agriculturist unprotected, or of letting this country be exposed to a total dependence on foreign supply. No such notion, indeed, ever entered his mind. His principle always was to protect the grower, while the consumer should be secured his due facilities. He was equally averse to the propositions of leaving either the import or export of corn totally free and unfettered; and therefore he opposed the resolution of last year, which, without the recommendation of any committee, or, as he conceived, any due consideration, was upon a sudden burst adopted, for allowing the unrestrained exportation of corn. This resolution he considered as quite erroneous in policy, and as involving a most material departure from the system that had governed the country for above five hundred years. It was, indeed, a total abandonment of the wise course recommended for the regulation of the corn trade by that able committee over which the late lord Liverpool presided. With respect to the report of the late committee upon the subject of agriculture, an intelligent witness, Mr. Webb, deposed, that the ex- penses of the farmer were likely to fall to what they were in 1792, excepting only the taxes: and calculating upon the evidence of that gentleman, with whom he had since had the advantage of some conversation, the rate fixed in the resolution before the committee was certainly too high. This gentleman's sincerity, too, was rendered unquestionable by the fact, that all the leases in which he had lately been engaged, were executed upon the calculation that rents must fall. As to the removal of the property tax, the relief which that measure would afford to the farmers was undeniable, and his noble friend was not correct in stating that they would, in lieu thereof, be liable to many incumbrances from the proposed advance of the assessed taxes, as that advance applied only to carriages and horses kept for pleasure. Nor was his noble friend correct in his allusion to the poor-rates, with which the country to which his noble friend belonged (Scotland) was certainly not much burthened. But the fact was, that these rates were generally much more likely to fall than to rise, and this probability rested upon a variety of obvious considerations. Upon the Report of the committee of 1813, he should feel ashamed to make any comment, founded, as that Report notoriously was, upon the evidence of three Irish gentlemen, whose evidence proceeded from very limited views. But even the last Report was evidently drawn up in a hurry; for it was there stated, that no witness recommended a less import price than 80s. while many witnesses stated that it ought to be more. But to those who read the appendix, this statement would appear to be unfounded. In fact, there was no surveyor but Mr. Easton, who mixed the character of surveyor with that of farmer, by whom a higher rate than 80s. was recommended, and even he was of opinion that if the expenses of the farmer should fall to the rate at which they were in 1792, the import price might be reduced to 64s. and thus corroborating the opinion of Mr. Webb. Mr. Bennet had no doubt recommended 96s.; but then this gentleman was a very extensive farmer. There were other witnesses, however, whose opinion fell short of 80s.; for instance, Mr. Maxwell recommended 76s. and with him Mr. Mann concurred. Mr. Lowe, too, the Scotch grower, whose authority was entitled to the utmost attention, had written to state that 75s. would be a sufficient protecting price, and with that opinion he (Mr. Rose) entirely concurred. But some witnesses recommended a less sum; and all the surveyors concurred, that even with the existing rents and charges to which the agriculturists were subject at the time of their examination, 30s. would afford an ample protection. Could it, then, be matter of wonder that he (Mr. Rose) should have opposed the establishment of a rate so high as 141s. which was recommend by the committee to which he had already alluded only eighteen months ago? He was as adverse as any man to the oppression or discouragement of our agriculturists; but surely his resistance to such an extravagant proposition could not be deemed unjust or unfair; nor could he be condemned either for resisting the establishment of 90s. which was proposed last year: The right hon. gentleman concluded with repeating, that he should, by the establishment of a due protecting duty, be always ready to give every encouragement to the growers of corn, consistently with the fair interest of the consumers; and in doing so he should feel that he was only acting upon the system which had regulated the policy of this country for ages.

declared his decided opinion, that the resolutions proposed to the committee were proper, and as such he felt them entitled to his support. Whatever unpopularity might attach to this opinion, strange as it might appear, that unpopularity would be to him an additional reason why he should give those resolutions his support. When the ministers, with whom it was his lot generally to contend upon adverse points, came forward, as on the present occasion they did, with a measure fraught with general, though to many unpalatable consequences, he would be ashamed of himself if, thinking that measure a right one, he took advantage of whatever unpopularity might attach to it, to withhold the concurrence of his aid to promote a common object in which they fortuitously agreed. The vote which he meant to give, was not one deduced from partial calculations of detail, but from a series of general principles. First, he was deeply impressed with the conviction that no country that aimed at greatness, should for an instant admit into her policy, that the main subsistence of her people should, under any circumstances, be dependent upon the resources of a foreign power. However true it might be, that perfect freedom of commerce should exist among nations in general, and even among individuals in particular; it was yet equally true, that in almost every instance it was impossible that this equality could practically subsist; and even if it were possible, and that in this particular case its practicability was manifest, still he would contend that it would be unwise to adopt it upon the present occasion. How was it possible to command this equality, so loudly sought for? Could they satisfy themselves that they could command the future concurrence of foreign legislatures, so as to leave a safe chance of their not being exposed to a complete state of dependence? The farmer had as good a right to the fair protection of his capital and industry as the manufacturer; and when the latter came forward and said, that it would be safe for him to part with the protection which he now enjoyed from foreign competition, then also it would be safe for the farmer to introduce perfect freedom into the commerce of grain.

He would lay it down as another principle, that of all classes, the farmer and the labourer in agriculture should be most favoured in the policy of every great country. He did not mean unduly favoured, for no man was more sensible of the value of the manufacturing and commercial classes; but in point of importance, whether viewed as to peace or war, they were subordinate to the agriculturists. In peace, if he looked at moral conduct, they were, generally speaking, superior; and in war, the pursuit of agriculture produced a set of robust and hardy people, superiorly qualified for military service. It was stated, however, that this was a measure mainly intended to raise rents; to continue those which were high, or to raise those which had fallen. He was neither ashamed nor afraid to say that this was a good consequence: for, did the other classes of society really think that they could derive any advantage from reducing the farmer and the gentleman in the scale of society? He would ask the manufacturers and the shopkeepers who were to be the purchasers of their commodities, if the agricultural classes were impoverished where would they find another or a better market? In truth, their interests, rightly considered, were the same with those of agriculture. It was impossible for a great country that was highly agricultural, not to be also highly manufacturing. There might be some exceptions to this in the states of antiquity; but in modern times it would be found almost uniformly true; and one consequence of this was, that the home market was always the best.

There was another view which he wished to take. To raise rents, it was said, was a grievance. Nay, one writer, he had seen, had the absurdity to assert, that rent made no part of the wealth of a state. What was rent? It was merely surplus produce, nothing more. It was that which was left of the produce of the soil, after the farmer was repaid for his labour and his capital in rendering his ground productive. That soil which was rendered the most productive left the greatest surplus, and paid the most rent. Who, then, could say, that the national capital was not thereby increased? He then adverted to the state of Ireland, and confessed that her condition weighed heavily with him, in a consideration like the present. She never could now become a manufacturing country, at least comparatively with this. He need not state the cause. He would, however, say, (and he meant no invidious retrospection) that the power of England had been for 600 years levelled at her depression, foolishly, indeed, for the one country, as it was cruelly oppressive for the other; and the bitter consequence was, that the resources of Ireland had been diverted into unnatural channels. It were vain to dwell upon this recollection. The articles of union had, however, set at rest the possibility of Ireland being a manufacturing country; she could be an agricultural one, and from her exercise of this occupation, could meet and aid the consumption of British manufactures. The law of his right hon. friend (sir John Newport), not long since enacted, for the free importation of grain into this country from Ireland, had done more for the general benefit of the whole empire, than any public law had effected since the Navigation Act. [Hear, hear!] Look to the fact. See the supply of food this country had received by that auspicious measure. And would any gentleman who heard him, prefer that such a channel of intercourse should take its source in the Baltic, in preference to the nearer and more immediate opening which the sister kingdom presented? He was sure he would not; fully believing that the time had at length gone by when the mischievous mode of disregarding Ireland was practised. He would as soon now intrust the affairs of Ireland to the consideration and adjustment of the British representatives in parliament, as he would to that of any other body composing, a part of the legislature of the empire.

The right hon. gentleman here referred to the calculating data regulating the importation price of grain; and in his opinion the standard of 80s. was alone the fair remuneration. His view of the question led him to accept that price; and at no other, he thought, could a safe protection be relied on. His hon. friend (Mr. Baring), for whose talents and extended information on this, as on all other subjects, he felt not only the highest respect, but admiration, had started opinions different from his own; but he could not concur in the notions which characterized his hon. friend's view of the subject—indeed he thought they were peculiarly unfortunate. The limitation and reducing scale were particularly objectionable: for what would be their direct operation? Nothing less than this—that the farmer would be told, for a certain time, and no longer, that his interest was worth consideration. If he was entitled to any aid at all, to be effective it should have a prospect of permanency; otherwise, the agriculturist would not trust his capital to so fluctuating a security; hewould not incur the risk of sinking his property in a pursuit, the reward of which might be intercepted by a foreigner at the moment when the British grower was seeking the fair remuneration of his embarked capital and industry.

In the course of the discussion, it had been said that the measure in contemplation would make food dearer for the people, and that the legislature ought to view with caution a proposition tending to such a consequence. He admitted they should do so, as far as was reasonable and consistent with the public weal, and with such other regulations as they were bound to regard. He would even admit that a necessary result, flowing from the present motion, would be, that probably on the very day of its adoption, an increase of price in food would take place. But he would utterly deny that such a permanent effect would arise. On the contrary, the standard would affix a regulating price, which would prevent that fluctuating value, so pregnant with evil, and would by a steady market, in the course of time, bring the staple article of food to fair and proper equivalents. He would therefore implore the House not to admit the fallacy, that two distinct interests were at variance in the present discussion. The great body of the consumers should know, that to the labour of agriculture they must owe that constant and uniform supply of subsistence which can alone be insured by a fair and adequate compensation. Mr. Ponsonby concluded with declaring, amidst loud cheers, that for these reasons he should give his cordial assent to the resolutions which had been proposed.

said, that he was not surprised that the House should have strongly felt the argumentative speech of his right hon. friend who had just sat down. In his opinion, however, both writers and speakers on the present question had much exaggerated their conflicting cases. In endeavouring to make up his mind on the point now before them, he thought that the efficacy of legislation in this question had been greatly over-rated. It was pretty clear that the measure would be nearly nugatory to the farmer for the present, and would probably not have that effect in future which was expected. With regard to what had fallen from an hon. friend of his, he must say, that he thought a community to which he (Mr. W.) belonged, had been rather hardly dealt with by him, as well as by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a former evening. The reproach that had been cast upon them (most unmeritedly he would say), he hoped now to do away, by informing his hon. friend and the House that the price of beer had been lowered that day;—[hear, hear, and a laugh,]—not in consequence of the threat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the clamour out of doors, but in consequence of certain measures that had been taken, and which only waited to be put in execution, till it was known what were the plans of the right hon. gentleman. The price would have been lowered before, had those plans been known before. He had presided that day at a meeting of tradesmen, where the proposition had been received with as much unanimity and good-humour, as the House had received the information he had just given them, although they could not help thinking that the attack upon them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather cutting and unmerited. Sometimes, however, the meekest of men and the most modest of women said the severest things. Before he discussed the subject of that evening's debate, he wished to advert to what had been said of the great profits of the brewers. The price of a barrel of beer was fifteen shillings more at present than it was in 1761, and of those fifteen shillings government took eleven; while the real increase of profit upon every pot of beer to the brewer, comparing the present period with that of 1761, was only about four-fifths of one halfpenny. [hear!] And yet, if the right hon. gentleman would take away the taxes, the brewers would be most happy to sell their beer still, lower. Having thus vindicated them, he would now vindicate the land-owners and farmers. It had been said, and most unjustly, that the present measure was a combination among the great landed proprietors to keep up the rents of the country at a most exorbitant rate. It was no such thing—[hear, hear!];—or if it were, indeed, a combination, it was a combination to prevent the depreciation of rent beyond its just value, and with it the depreciation of all other property. The clamour that had been raised against high rents, was a most unfounded and a most unwise clamour, and had always excited his indignation. Taking the country through, the rents had not been raised beyond what they ought to be, according to existing circumstances; and it should never be forgotten, that the landed interests were inseparable from our commercial prosperity. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Marryatt) had stated the immense rise of rent that had taken place on a property of his, as a sort of challenge to land-holders: but they in their turn had an equal right to ask, what had been the profits of his commerce. The rise of rents had not been an iniquity. It was a fair increase, resulting partly from the depreciation of money and the rise of prices. It was a popular thing to say to the landlords, Down with your rents; but he would assert they ought not to come down. How much of the capital of landlords had been expended on inclosures, on roads, on draining? All the bogs between this and his country had been drained since the time that general Oglethorpe shot snipes in Berkeley-square. The farmer, in what were called the good old times, often slaved on his land; but an increase of rent had in many instances stimulated his exertions, and in a few years he had found himself with much more money in his pocket than before. He was therefore perfectly convinced that there had been an unfounded clamour against the rise of rents. With regard to the witnesses that had been examined, it was difficult to draw any fixed conclusions from their evidence, as they were all called to answer a particular purpose. He felt at every step the difficulty of legislating upon the subject; and the more he considered, it the more he was convinced that no plan of legislation could accomplish what was anticipated. When the price of bread was high, the popular feelings blinded the judgment; and he could remember when it was the fashion of the times, countenanced too by the then lord chief justice of England, to attribute it all to the acts and practices of forestallers, regraters, and middle-men. It was now, however, a time when the people might be told that the forestaller, the regrater, and the middleman were doing more good in their private dealings than could be done by all the plans for public granaries and warehouses. The middle-man was always the friend of the people. He collected corn during a time of cheapness, to sell it out during a time of dearness; and if in his speculations he sometimes went beyond the mark, he required no other punishment than what his avarice received from being disappointed in its calculations. On le subject of wages, he had some years ago delivered an opinion, to which, however unpopular it might be, he still adhered, namely, that more human misery was produced by over-payment than by under-payment. Large wages led to idleness, extravagance, and dissipation. There was one class of the labouring community who had not so fully the means in their own hands of remedying an increase in the price of corn, greater than that to which those wages were adequate, he meant the agricultural class. A rise in the wages of agricultural labour did not rapidly follow a rise in the price of corn; but then a fall did not rapidly follow a fall in the price of corn. The wages of the agricultural labourer had lately risen; the price of corn had fallen—he was, therefore, left in a better situation than that which he had until recently enjoyed. He by no means thought those wages too high at present; on the contrary, he thought that when corn became higher they would be too low. He was not one of those who approved of the exercise of what was called old English hospitality towards the labouring classes in the country—of the cutting up of barons of beef, and the swigging of barrels of ale. Nothing contributed so touch to prodigality, profligacy, and dissoluteness, as this mis- named hospitality; but he was fully sensible of the advantages which those labouring classes derived from the residence of their landlords amongst them. In this respect, England had a great superiority over other countries. In England there were many landlords who constantly resided amongst their tenantry; and those larger owners of estates, who during a period of the year attended their duties in parliament, as soon as those were over generally returned to their estates, to perform their not less important duties in the country. In other nations the principal land-owners were drawn to and retained about the court, to add to what was termed its splendour, by the display of red and blue ribbons, and crosses of one kind or another, which as soon as they received they buttoned their coats to hide—fooleries which now appeared to be the object of imitation elsewhere. There was no place in which the landlords were so much attached to the soil as in England.

He would now consider the other side of the question, on which, also, great exaggeration had taken place. The philosophers did not quite satisfy him. They were occasionally inconsistent in their arguments. It was, however, evident, that any superabundant production of corn in the country would produce an increased population. Mr. Malthus had proved the elasticity of the principle of the population, and that let people plough, sow, reap, and work their hearts out, there would always be found some little brat or other to consume the superabundant corn which this activity might produce. Nor was a want of habitations a check to population. He remembered a young woman having called on him, and told him that she had lately married, and wanted a house on his estate. He told her that he had no house to give her, and asked her why she had not thought of that before she married? "Lord bless you, Sir," was the reply, "I was thinking of something else!" [A laugh.] The population of the country was working up in every way. How much would it be increased by the return to their homes of the disbanded soldiers and paid-off sailors, whose wives would be much more prolific when in their keeping than they had been while in the keeping of the right hon. gentlemen opposite. [A laugh.]

Much apprehension had been expressed lest we should be inundated with foreign corn. In the first place, whence was the corn to come? Some said from France. Others contended that that was impracticable, but that it would come from Dantzic; while a third set characterized that supposition as absurd, and declared that from America an overwhelming importation might rationally be expected. For his part, he did not fear our being overwhelmed with foreign corn, although in times of scarcity we might obtain a supply that would be very serviceable. Whatever encouragement we might give by acts of parliament to the importation of foreign corn, the state of the continent had been, was, and unfortunately would, he apprehended, long be such, that foreign governments would prevent the exportation of their corn. France was at that moment going to stop the exportation. As for the Baltic, what could be feared from the northern countries? Look at the harassed and desolate state of Poland. Was it to be feared that an act of the British government would immediately turn Poland into a fertile country? And were that practicable, was not the king of Prussia strengthening the opinions of those who thought with him (Mr. Whitbread), that no danger of an overwhelming importation existed in that quarter, by imposing oppressive duties on the exportation of corn? In his opinion, governments and legislatures had no more control over such matters than they had over the air. What could be more vigorous, vigilant, and omnipresent than the power of Buonaparté while it endured? yet, when he attempted to prevent us (in imitation of our disgraceful example) from receiving sustenance from France, he failed. The French wanted money more than corn, we wanted corn more than money; the elastic force of the raw material burst its bands, and French ships arrived in British ports laden with that forbidden cargo. So it was when Buonaparté, in his hostility to England, attempted to compel Russia from sending us any articles of naval equipment. As in the other instance, the elastic force of the raw material burst its bands, and the exports which were in consequence made to this country from Russia, occasioned those complaints on the part of the French emperor which led to his invasion of the Russian empire, and eventually to the condition in which things now were—a condition which almost induced some people among us, who could not sell their wheat quite so well as they did formerly, to exclaim, "that it would be better to set Boney up again." [A laugh.] They considered him as an ingredient which tended to enhance the money market. If this spirit were permitted to gain head, he was afraid, if he might use such contradictory terms, that the right hon. gentleman opposite must declare war again, in order to keep peace with the people at home. [A. laugh.] Adverting to the subject of averages, he contended that their fallacy was gross, and generally allowed. It had been allowed by the right hon. the vice-president of the board of trade, who had nevertheless said that he must take them, because he did not know what else to do. As a legislator, that right hon. gentleman ought to endeavour to discover what to do. For his part, he could not agree to the proposed Resolutions, unless some more correct mode of obtaining the averages was resorted to. He had been told by several well-informed persons, that had the averages been fairly struck throughout the kingdom, the ports would have been shut so long ago as November. Were the averages better taken therefore, they would afford greater protection to the farmer. In the first place he would say, "take the averages better, and the ports will sooner be shut." In the second place, "now the ports are shut, wait until you see the effect before you adopt any new measures." He was not afraid of any inundation of corn from abroad; because he knew it would not come. He was not afraid of meeting the foreigner in the market, because he knew that nobody would buy foreign wheat if they could get English at the same price. The exportation in the last year from Ireland alone, had been as great within 30,000 quarters as in any former year; and thus the Irishman was able to meet the foreigner both in quantity and quality. He had heard the sages of the Corn-market predict long ago, that corn would never again be cheap in this country. Thank God, he had lived to hear them lament, that it was not likely to be again dear.

rose to explain. He denied that he had held any language hostile towards France, as had been attributed to him; but had said, one the contrary, that he hoped, trusted, and believed, that we should, in consequence of the good understanding between the British government and the amiable French monarch, maintain the relations of peace and amity with that country for many years to come.

deprecated hasty discussion. The bitterest foe to the country could not wish any thing better.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved an adjournment of the debate; which was agreed to, it being then two o'clock in the morning.