inquired of an hon. gentleman whom he saw in his place, whether, as chairman of a committee which had sat above stairs to inquire into the State of the Hulks, he intended to propose any measure to the House, pursuant to the resolutions adopted by that committee?

said, it certainly was his intention to submit a measure to the consideration of the House; but he had delayed doing so, as the Act relating to the Hulks would expire towards the end of the present session.

then rose to ask of a right hon. gentleman, the under secretary of state for the home department, whether his Majesty's government had it in contemplation to take any steps upon the subject?

replied, that it was now under the consideration of government, but he was not prepared to say when it would be brought forward.

rose, and begged the hon. gentleman would allow him first to ask a question of the right hon. the Under Secretary of State for the Home department. It was connected with the abolition of the Slave-trade, and referred to a statement which he found in a work written by a person who styled himself Chief Justice of the colony of Sierra Leone. In that pamphlet it was stated, that three persons, of the names of Broodier, Cooke, and Dunbar, had been convicted in that colony of violating the statute which prohibited the traffic of slaves; that they had been sentenced to seven years transportation, and were sent over to this country in order to be conveyed out to Botany Bay; but that the Secretary of State for the home department, alive, as the writer termed it, to the calls of humanity, had relieved them from their confinement on board the hulks, and remitted their sentence of transportation. Now, he wished to know, whether that statement was a correct one, and if so, upon what grounds the government had felt itself justified to interpose between the law and its victims, where the individuals had been convicted of a crime so foul as the one in question?

professed his willingness to give the hon. and learned member every information in his power upon the subject; and if two or three days had been allowed him, he should have been enabled to make a more satisfactory communication. He had not seen the pamphlet; but he was perfectly prepared to assure the hon. and learned gentleman that there was not even the shadow of a foundation for what was alleged in it. The case was simply this: a representation was made to the office of his noble relative, that the three individuals mentioned by the hon. member were all in so miserable a condition from sickness, that it would be an act of common humanity to exempt them from the severe labour of the other convicts on board the hulks. This representation was confirmed by the proper authority, and being so, the Secretary of State felt it his duty to comply with the request. Beyond that, nothing had been determined upon with respect to them. When they first arrived in this country they petitioned the government against the infliction of their sentence; and from certain facts stated in their pe- tition, there certainly was a disposition felt to grant its prayer. But, a few days since, some new circumstances appeared, involving legal doubts of such a nature that the noble Secretary had thought it his duty to refer the case to the law officers of the crown for their opinion, which it was wished should be recorded in the office for the home department. They had not yet made their report; but whenever it was made, he should be most willing to communicate to the hon. gentleman, either privately or in that House, its nature.

said, the right hon. gentleman had answered his question in the fullest and most satisfactory manner; and he was quite sure, that neither the right hon. gentleman, nor any other member of that House, would suppose that he had put the question for the purpose of interfering with whatever course the government might think it necessary to adept, and which, in this case, he thought they had most correctly adopted. However guilty an individual might be thought by the jury who tried him, and however deep and atrocious might be the nature of that guilt, still, if there were but the shadow of a legal doubt upon his case, he ought to have all the benefit of that doubt, and it was the duty of the government to consult its law officers upon it. The writer of the pamphlet, however, spoke of those unhappy men as being improperly convicted. Nor did he confine himself to their case. The hon. and learned gentleman said he had the honour and satisfaction of belonging to an institution (the African institution), whose course of proceedings for several years past was the object of gross calumny and libel in that work. The moment he perused it, he had made inquiries to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the statements; and he was satisfied, that not only were they without the shadow of foundation, but many of them were stated under circumstances which would have enabled the author to know their inaccuracy had he examined them. He was happy to add, however, that the African institution were about to submit to the public a statement, in which they would refute, point by point, the allegations contained in this calumnious libel.

combated the arguments urged on a former evening against the Resolutions which had been submitted by his right hon. friend. These arguments, he said, had no foundation in truth, and were fallacious in the extreme. He replied to what had fallen from an hon. member respecting clay lands. He did not mean to say, that they were as good as some other soils; but he knew that they very often produced three quarters per acre, and if well cultivated, as much as four quarters, and the weight and quality of the grain were excellent. Now, if those lands were thrown out of cultivation in consequence of the low price of corn, what would become of the inhabitants of the districts in which they prevailed? Could they feed upon furze, or would the manufacturers come forward and relieve them? It had been said also, that the farmers would be able to sell their produce lower, because the property tax was taken off; but during the last year they had paid the property tax upon their losses, and not upon their profits. The great object which the Resolutions in question had in view was the protection of the farmer in the growth of corn, so that he might receive the fair reward of his labour, and at the same time the establishment of such a system as would ultimately lead to a supply of grain upon reasonable terms. This object, he contended, the resolutions were eminently calculated to obtain; and they should, therefore, have his unqualified support—a support which he was satisfied was in unison with the feelings of the great majority of the farmers in Sussex, from whom he had presented a petition, on a former night, to that House.

stated, that he was one of those who very seldom addressed the House; he would not detain them by going into a detail upon the different topics connected with this question, nor in following the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment (Mr. Baring), through that range of statement which he had produced to the House, in a speech, in his mind more calculated to mislead the public understanding, than any speech he ever heard delivered. The noble lord said he had had the honour of presenting a petition to the House, signed by above 500 of the most enlightened and respectable agriculturists of the county he had the honour to represent; and he would venture to say, no petition more fully proving the present inefficacy of the corn laws ever was presented to the House. In the course of the few words he had to say, he would take the liberty of adverting to that petition, and reading one or two resolutions, feeling, that to use the sentiments of his constituents in their own expressive language, would have much greater weight with the committee than any thing he could offer himself. He thought it was unnecessary for him to state to the House the vast anxiety and interest that occupied the public mind in Ireland upon this subject, for they must be aware of the great extent of agriculture that covered the whole face of that country; nor did he assume too much in attributing to that agriculture, those resources and energies which had enabled Ireland so materially to contribute to the present situation of affairs upon the continent, and to the restoration of that peace in Europe, which now so happily prevailed throughout the world. Here the noble lord adverted to some of the resolutions of the petition from the county of Lowth, proving that, in the three months previous to Christmas last, by the returns from London, of January 2, 1815, 258,812 quarters of foreign wheat were imported into London, and only 350 of Irish; and in the same period, 48,611 quarters of foreign oats were imported into London, and only 2,770 of Irish; and that, in the week following the 2d of January, 1815, 35,590 quarters of foreign wheat, with 24,08S quarters of foreign oats, were imported into London, and not a grain from Ireland. Surely, continued he, these are uncontradicted facts; which, whether looking to the present situation of the empire, or to its future resources, call upon the legislature for amendment. And here he could not help noticing what fell from the hon. member last night, who moved the amendment; who, in the face of that assembly, in the face of the country, and in the face of common sense, ventured to compare the advantage of having our resources within ourselves, and deriving our subsistence from our own soil, with the precarious reliance of procuring our subsistence from a foreign market, which might be withheld when we were in the utmost want, and produce an unparalleled calamity, and such, he thought might be the case with this country, if the House agreed to the wishes of the hon. gentleman: for how could any one suppose that the British and Irish farmer, who had great taxes and burdens to hear, could cultivate his land, and raise his grain at the same prices as the foreign farmer, who had none of these drawbacks to contend with? With regard to Ireland, the noble lord thought, by what he had stated from the resolutions he had read, that the House must see the great alarm that prevailed in the agricultural world there on this subject. He had received a letter from an eminent agriculturist in the county of Lowth, who said such was the dismay amongst them, that if the best farm in Ireland teas offered to him for nothing, he being obliged to till the land under existing prices, he would not accept the boon. Surely, this state of things required the interference of the legislature. Even the hon. gentleman must, in his candid moments, see the injustice that was done to the farmer; he must feel that the manufacturer of the soil had as good a right to protection as any other whatsoever. For no one could say that the time would not again return, when England, forced into the contest, would not want those resources within herself, of which she would be deprived, if by following the advice of those on the opposite side, we should deny to the farmer that solid and permanent security which alone would enable him to preserve those resources within this country which experience had already shown were so necessary for the prosperity of the empire. He should, under all the circumstances, vote for the resolutions of the right hon. gentleman; at the same time he was by no means certain that the maximum of 80s. proposed by him, was sufficient to give that protection to the agriculturist, for which he contended. But if it was not found efficacious, he trusted government would again come forward, in that manly and praiseworthy manner they had done upon this occasion, and propose to the House some other arrangement which would afford a permanent and satisfactory protection to the manufacturer of the soil. The noble lord concluded by trusting, that however the House legislated on the subject, they would ever bear in their minds how nearly connected it was with the dearest interests of Ireland.

said, the question was of such importance, that it required the most cautious and deliberate inquiry. For himself, as he had found the utmost difficulty in examining it, so he felt the greatest diffidence in delivering his opinion. He was convinced, however, that in order to secure an economical and permanent supply of grain, some restriction was necessary; and therefore he should support the resolutions for that reason, and because they would no less protect the manufacturing than the agricultural interests of the country. It was most evident, that unless the price of grain exceeded 70s. a quarter, a great part of the land in this country must go out of cultivation; and we must depend upon foreign supply for the support of our population. It should be remembered, however, that foreign supply might perhaps be withheld from us at the very moment when most, we needed it; and it was in vain to talk of any regulations between governments for securing it. The people always felt a degree of alarm at seeing grain exported, however low its price might happen to be; and if the price were high, it would be impossible to restrain the popular feeling. He had himself witnessed that last summer, when he was in France, at the time the new regulations respecting the exportation of corn were promulgated, and when: the price of it was extremely moderate in that country. With respect to the conslirting interests embraced in the present question, he perfectly agreed in the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bedford, in his most eloquent and amusing speech last night, that great exaggerations had taken place on both sides. As to the price at which protection ought to be afforded to the farmer, he was only anxious that it should not be afforded at a lieder rate than the necessity of the case actually demanded.

observed, that the measure had two classes of opponents. That party, highly respectable as he allowed it to be, and operating more by their talents than their number, who openly avowed their hostility to it—the political economists; and those whose enmity was more covert; who, while they professed to protect agriculture, were disposed to narrow that protection so much as to render it utterly unavailing. The situation of the question in this respect might be compared to that of the abolition of the slave trade; which had also two classes of opponents. It was well known that the abolition of the slave trade was much longer deferred by the opposition of the gradual abolitionists than by that of the opponents of abolition altogether. Without some efficient protection it was impossible that our farmers, surrounded by difficulties, could be successful in the struggle against foreign agriculturists. There was also much of political consideration in the question; as it was by no means fitting that this country should depend for its subsistence on the caprice or on the hostility of other countries. Alluding to the speech made last night by his hon. friend, the member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), he observed, that two or three topics were introduced into that speech which had better been spared; but more particularly the attempt to draw a line of demarcation between the different orders in Great Britain, which really did not exist; for it was well known that there was a much more intimate connation between the landlords and the pedantry in this country than in any other in Europe. His hon. friend had alleged, that it was in the contemplation of a great majority of the House to force this measure upon the people. This was not the case; and the assertion was one of those exaggerations which, upon such a subject as the present, was peculiarly to be deprecated. The only object of which he knew was to adopt such measures as were calculated to secure, not the temporary, but the permanent interest of the people. It had been roundly asserted by his hon. friend, that parliament were about to give a security to the agricultural interest which had never been given to any other interest, commercial or manufacturing. Let any one look at the statute book, and they would find that the reverse was the fact. They would find that every description of commercial and manufacturing interest was there protected by express provisions. What was proposed, therefore, was only to extend to the agricultural interest that protection which other interests had long enjoyed; and in so doing, eventually to benefit the whole community. Great reliance seemed to have been placed on the effect to be produced on the feelings of the House by a representation of the hardships of the laboring population of this country. If the laboring population of the country had an interest different from that of the other part of the population, it should be recollected that another class of the laboring population should enter into the calculation, besides the manufacturing class. Out of twelve millions and a half, the population of this country, there were not less than from four to five millions dependent on agriculture; and out of six millions of the population of Ireland, there were at least four millions of the same class. Here, therefore, were from eight to nine millions, out of a population of eighteen millions and a half, employed in agriculture; and yet these were pronounced not worth attention! Could any thing be more monstrous? While speaking of Ireland, the interest of which country seemed to have been strangely forgotten on this subject, it might not be uninteresting to state how far she had, as an agricultural country, been affected by the last Intercourse Act which had been passed, and in what proportion Great Britain had been benefited by her exertions. During the three years, 1804–5–6, which preceded the passing of the Intercourse Act, Ireland exported to England 975,000 quarters. In the three subsequent years, 1808 9–10, the exportations reached, under the Intercourse Act, 1,800,000 quarters, and the three last years it had amounted to 2,170,000 quarters. To this, he presumed, it would be said, that Ireland was sufficiently benefited by this exportation. But was she benefited alone? No, precisely in the proportion of the increase in the demand for corn upon Ireland from Great Britain, had been the increase in the demand for woolens upon Great Britain from Ireland. The export of woolens from Great Britain to Ireland in the years which he had already mentioned when speaking of the increasing exportation of corn from Ireland to Great Britain, had increased from 2,100,000 yards to 2,300,000 yards; and from 2,300,000 yards to 3,700,000 yards. On this subject, therefore, as on every other, the interests of Great Britain and Ireland were the same. It was the interest as well as the duty of parliament to guard the interests of a country so able and so willing to contribute to the general prosperity of the empire. It might be supposed that the increasing demand on the part of Ireland for British manufactures had been occasioned by an increasing demand on the part of Great Britain for Irish manufactures; but that was not the case. During the periods to which he had alluded, the demand on the part of Great Britain for Irish linens had actually fallen off; which proved that it was not that resource, but the sale of her corn, which had enabled Ireland to make so great a demand for the woolens of Great Britain. Considering that it was a most essential object both to the manufacturer and to the agriculturist, that the empire should be maintained in a state independent of the caprice or enmity of other countries with respect to its supply of food—considering that the interests of the manufacturer and agriculturist were inseparably connected—considering that the interests of Great Britain and Ireland were inseparably connected—looking at all the objects and interests at stake, he did think that even if the manufacturer were called upon to make some sacrifice (which, he contended, was nevertheless not the case,) as a good citizen, he was bound to make it. It had been asked, why the Irish should feel so much uneasiness, when the decrease of her exports was only 30,000 quarters; but she had also decreased 20,000 quarters in foreign exports, to Spain, Portugal, &c. A country like Ireland might feel difficulties, even though exportation increased. There were many farmers who had not capital to enable them to hold back from the market, and who must, therefore, sell, whether for profit or loss. They must go to market even though it was going to their ruin. He was convinced it was an essential thing even for our manufacturers that we should be independent of foreign countries. The real strength of the country was concerned in it, and in every view of our interests it was necessary that a legislative measure similar to the one proposed should be enacted.

declared, that after all the attention which he had been able to bestow on this subject, he was convinced not only of the expediency, but of the absolute necessity of some legislative interference to avert impending ruin from the agricultural interest; although he knew that on this subject he differed materially in opinion from many individuals, to whose sentiments he had been accustomed to pay the greatest respect. In the course of the arguments which had been urged on the question, much misrepresentation had taken place with respect to the present price of corn in France, which had been stated at a rate much lower than that which it was in reality. In the meeting which had taken place on this subject out of doors, authentic documents had been produced, by which it appeared that the present price of corn at Paris was 58s. a quarter, and that although in some of the provinces it was so low as 36s. and 38s. a quarter, yet that the average price throughout France was 46s. and not, as had been erroneously said, 40s. It should be considered also, that this calculation had been made at the old rate of exchange, 24 livers to the pound. The fall in the price of corn did not altogether depend on the quantity imported. Recently, a greater fall had taken place, particularly in barley, than the importations would warrant. The fact was, that the state of the country during the last war had given rise to the existing circumstances; for during the war such impediments had necessarily been thrown in the way of importation, that the native agriculturist was encouraged to an extension of his exertions; and now that our ports had been open to all the nations of Europe, the sudden change had exposed him to the impending ruin, which it was the object of the proposed measure to avert. With respect to the rate at which the importation price should be fixed, he thought that it ought to be as low as possible: The object was not to fix such an extravagant price as to bring soils into cultivation naturally unfit for it, but solely to protect the farmer from imminent danger. It was known that there were infinite variations of price throughout the different markets of the different parts of this kingdom. For instance, the price received by the farmer in Northumberland and East Lothian must be much less than that received by the farmer in the neighborhood of the metropolis, as the freight and charges of bringing the grain to the port of London was to be deducted from it. The subject of averages was involved in considerable difficulty. The kingdom was, it was well known, divided into twelve districts; the quantities of grain sold in the markets of each district, and the average prices, were stated in a return; and the corn-inspector, from the twelve returns, took an average for the whole kingdom. There were many objections to this mode. At one market in Norfolk there were in one week 109 quarters sold, and at another market 4,000 quarters; and the return was as much influenced by the one as the other. In the maritime districts of Wales and Cornwall the prices were generally higher than in London. Farmers were generally aware that the prices in the Gazette were not to be depended on. The only security they could have of an approximation to accuracy, would be in the universality of the transaction. The fact was, that the law of 1804 had never yet been in operation; and it would be desirable to have the mode devised by that law altered. If, by correcting the manner of taking the average, three or four shillings could be obtained, he would prefer 76s. to 80s. under the present mode. He wished to advert shortly to the state of our currency, which was at present without a standard. The House ought to have their eyes open to this in fixing the importation price; for the necessity for the present alteration had mainly grown out of the depreciation of our currency. He could not help adverting to the great improvement in legislating with respect to corn, which had taken place since the middle of the reign of Charles the 2nd. At that time it was impossible to buy corn for the purpose of selling it again. Now there was a perfectly free trade between all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, a free exportation, and only a trifling impediment to a free importation.

declared his intention of voting for the resolutions, being fully impressed, that whatever benefit and protection were held out to the agriculturist, equally improved the manufacturing interests. He said, that an hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) was himself a striking instance of the advantages which were possessed by merchants' sons, and he saw no reason why the sons and daughters of farmers should not share them.

was sorry that any measures on the subject of the corn laws, should be pressed at the present time; but as they were, he should not refrain from entering into the consideration of them. The hon. member (Mr. Baring) had talked of an immense tribute which the other classes of society paid to the landed interest. Though he was one of the landed interest, he did not conceive that he was under any obligation to any of the other classes for what they had purchased from him as a farmer or landholder. The bon: member had also talked of a want of connation between the landlords and pedantry of this country. Those who were acquainted with England, must know that the landholders passed one half of the year in the midst of their pedantry. On these points he certainly could not subscribe to the doctrine of his hon. friend. Nor could he agree with gentlemen on the other side, that this was, at least in Scotland and Ireland, a question unconnected with rent. Rent was certainly a component part of the price of the produce respecting which they were now legislating. Look at it in Scotland, and look at it in Ireland. They had it in evidence from a farmer in East Lothian, that for 420 acres he paid a rent of 2,500l. a year, and that the value of the produce might be 5,000l. one half of which went to the landlord. So much for the subject of rent. An hon. gentleman, who had spoken on this, as he did on all subjects, with great ability, was surprised how so much effect could be produced in discouraging our agriculture by so small an importation. He could easily satisfy the hon gentleman how. The quality of the French corn was this last year so much better than our own, that the millers would not buy the latter unless they could almost get it for nothing; and hence a comparatively small importation had produced such a had effect in respect to our farmers. When he had ever put the question to our farmers, what price they could have got for their inferior wheat had there been no foreign importation? the answer was almost any thing that we should have asked. It was true, that barley had almost been a drug, notwithstanding the exportation of it had exceeded the importation. In fact, it could hardly be sold at any price. But, then, this was because government were no longer purchasers, and because the tax laid on malt by government had the effect of preventing the lower people from getting that beverage which every English laborer ought to have, and which every English laborer wished to have. The legislature ought not to interfere in imposing any restrictions on importation, unless it could be made out that such restrictions were for the benefit of the whole community. The interference ought in the first place to be beneficial, and then it became a question, if the interference ought to be to the extent proposed by the resolution. He had opposed the Corn Bill the year before the last, and he had not to regret that he had done so. He had never known a Bill of such importance attempted to be carried through on such imperfect evidence. He had only voted against it, and for that vote he had received the thanks of all his neighbors, both farmers and others. The present measure came forward at a time when the agriculturists were certainly labouring under a considerable degree of distress, and a more perfect inquiry had been made than that on which the former measure was brought in; but still there was not sufficient evidence for them to legislate on. We stood now in a new order of things, and the farmer was secure from importation for three months to come. The prices for a great many years past had never been so low as the rate at which importation was prohibited. The property tax had an effect on the dealings of every order in the community, and the repeal of that tax ought, therefore, to be taken into account in any legislative measure of the nature of the present. For these reasons, as the farmer was secured for three months, he could have wished the postponement of the subject for six or seven weeks, during which interval the House might have been employed in making further inquiry. But not to press this objection, and dealing with the question as it now stood, a permanent and a temporary measure were now before the House. He was at first inclined to a temporary measure; but on farther consideration it appeared to him almost as a matter of indifference; because if this permanent measure should be found inimical to the general interests of the community, he was convinced it would soon become temporary; and if the temporary measure was found on trial to answer its purpose, it would be continued. For this reason he should not vote for the temporary measure.

With respect to the importation price, the lower the rate at which the farmer could be protected, the more satisfactory it would be to the country, and the more likely to answer the end desired. It was to be kept in view that the most flourishing state of our agriculture had taken place not only under importation, but the greatest importation ever known in this country. It was found that this importation did not at all interfere with the profits of the farmer. The farmer need not in ordinary years look with any degree of alarm at any importation; and from what he knew of the feeling of the farmers on this subject, he did not believe that they did look with alarm at it. The late meeting at Kent had not been generally attended by the farmers. The farmers throughout the country were, he believed, waiting with patience to see what the House would do for them, without troubling them with any solicitation. The rise of 15s., from 65s. to 80s. was an immense sum—almost 30 per cent. at one jump,— and that at a time when our wheat was of the worst quality, and the quantity of it not great. The House ought to be cautious how they raised the price of the means of subsistence beyond what the wages of labour could purchase; if they did so, we must revert to the system we had followed during the war,—that was, paying the wages of agricultural labour out of the poor rates. Was this state of things desirable during a peace? Nothing but necessity could justify such an expedient. It had been said—Would you have raised the wages of labourers to 20s. and 25s. a week, which had often been paid of late to large families? In his opinion it would have been better to do so than resort to the expedient in question. It had been said by some gentlemen, that wheat would not rise after passing this measure to the utmost limit of the importation price; it might be so, but this year he had no doubt that it would. If there was an average of 80s. taken, the best wheat would be sold at 100s. a quarter. On taking up any provincial newspaper, the House would soon be convinced of this. He would appeal to any practical man if, on an average of 80s., the best wheat would not fetch 100s. Was it necessary that the best wheat should be at 100s. to give a protection to the farmer? With regard to the information laid before the House as to the expenses of farmers, he had only to observe, that it was an ex parte evidence throughout. No cross questions were put to the witnesses; nothing could be more unsatisfactory, or more fallacious, than the statements of the expense of growing an acre of wheat. So much was stated for fetching in the corn, and so much for taking it out. This was not the way that farmers went to work in paying for their labour: they might as well say they took it in hackney-coaches: they found the story answered their purpose, and that it was believed by those to whom they told it. The farmers were a prudent and a cautious people, and knew their business. This was their business, their trade; and he did not blame them, when they found people willing to believe them to make such statements. It was natural for them to wish to make the best bargain, and to get the greatest profit they could; and with this view it was not likely they would be much disposed in any statement before their landlords to exaggerate their profits, or under-rate their expenses. He should be very sorry if any farmer of his acquaintance were to be duped by such a statement.

The situation of Ireland formed, assuredly, an important consideration in this question, and above all, in matters of this nature, it was most fit that it should be considered an integral part of the empire, for which the House was legislating. If in making up his mind, one thing more than another had had weight, it was the effect the measure was calculated to have upon the sister kingdom. But to those who were so anxious to give Ireland protection, he would put one question: could not the agriculturists there grow their corn at a cheaper rate than the farmers in England? The taxes there were much lower: they had no poor rates, no land tax, no property tax; and with respect to labour, three men in Ireland could be paid with the same sum that would be given to one man in England. A noble lord (Binning), who had so ably argued last night, had made all his calculations upon the Scotch land and English expenses; knowing that the son of a peer of Scotland was not allowed to sit for a Scotch borough, he had felt it a matter of duty, although he took the part of his native soil, not to forget that he was an English representative. Several causes had operated against the farmers, amongst others, the intricate conduct of the millers; in his own neighbourhood they were the great purchasers of grain; but in making their returns to the inspector they always, by some singular accident, forgot to state the value of any inferior samples they had bought, while the returned price of grain was kept up unfairly, by their scrupulous accuracy in mentioning the highest price of the finest wheals they had purchased. This circumstance had tended to mislead those who had calculated the average, and his opinion was, that 72s. would be the fairer price to be named, allowing 9s. per bushel; the present price was 65s. and allowing 7s. per quarter in addition, he thought would answer every purpose that the most sanguine supporters of the measure could expect. To the Irish growers it would afford advantages beyond those that were enjoyed by this country. He was anxious that in any vote upon this subject that the House should be unanimous, since the operation of such a resolution in the country would be much more advantageous, and tend to convince all classes that their interests had been duly and anxiously consulted. He lamented that, the other expe- riment had not first been tried, since the recent shutting of the ports would be attributed to the contemplation of the propositions now upon the table. There were many members in the House who, like him, owed their daily bread to farmers. That he depended entirely upon his rents he fairly acknowledged; but he hoped that this circumstance did not interfere with the discharge of his parliamentary duty to the people of England, and he was convinced that other members would feel themselves equally bound to act upon public principle and not upon private interest. He heard it said amongst the public, that the House was too landed, This objection had never been made before; but he thought that there were other interests sufficiently powerful in parliament, to check any attempt which the landed interest might make to obtain an undue influence. He recommended unanimity to the House. The can dour and temper with which the discussions had hitherto been carried on, would do great credit to parliament, and great good to the community. Should the measure be duly considered and progressively introduced, its effect would be more satisfactory. The people were not ignorant of the distresses of the farmers, and their opinion had lately undergone a great alteration. The tradesmen in country towns had begun to feel that since farmers had less money to spend, they themselves had less to receive. This led them to enquire into the cause of the farmers want of means, and to wish that some relief should be granted them. He concluded by recommending that the resolutions should be modified as he had mentioned. If, he said, the House proceeded in a slow, considerate, and dispassionate manner, he had no doubt but the conclusion of their deliberations would be highly satisfactory to the country at large. Above all, he wished them to pay attention to the wants and necessities of the middling and lower orders of the community.

observed, that although it should ever be the great object of his public exertions to support the best interests of Ireland, and however desirous he should be to have those interests considered with the most anxious attention, still he thought that in every question of moment no separate interests ought to weigh against the more urgent claims of the entire empire. In the present question, he was happy to find them perfectly united. He could not conceive on what ground of national policy, the hon. member who spoke last should refuse to Ireland an equally protecting duty with England; if, indeed, any difference should be made, the advantage ought to be given to Ireland, labouring as she was under the want of a sufficient capital. The agriculture of Ireland should be encouraged, as being conducive to the general prosperity, and not exposed to an unjust competition with foreign growers, injurious in a serious degree even to our artisans and manufacturers. He could not believe that the effect of the proposed resolutions would be an increase in the price of bread; for if he had entertained such an idea, he could not, as the representative of a populous and commercial city, support the measure. The temporary expedients proposed by some members, were not an effectual remedy; but a specious guise, concealing an ultimate misfortune, inducing the landholder to expend his capital at present, and deceiving him by the show of protection, while it insured the certainty of his future ruin. He trusted the House would, on this occasion, give, by its firmness, a proof to all the world, that it was determined to afford protection to agriculture.

congratulated the House on the good temper, wisdom, and moderation, with which the question had this year been discussed: he had feared that the weight of government influence would have been employed to turn the scale against the real merits of the question; but the subject had been introduced by the right hon. gentleman in a way that removed all apprehension of that kind. His opinions were certainly decidedly opposed to the measure proposed, although he was not at all surprised at the opinion that seemed to prevail in the House; he was not more surprised that the resolution should have been opposed. Charity began at home, and every man was naturally anxious to support the system by which his own peculiar interests were promoted. It was not his intention to draw invidious distinctions; but it might fairly be said that the land-owner and land-holder, were much benefited by the removal of the property tax, while many of the supplies necessary in consequence of its repeal were taken almost exclusively out of the pocket of the manufacturer and merchant. He admitted that the farmers might labour under temporary distress, and he felt for their situation; but he was persuaded that the remedy was out of the reach and province of the legislature. If it came to that alternative, he should certainly vote in favour of 72s. the lowest price that had been mentioned, as being the lesser evil.

felt assured, that whatever regulations the House might adopt, his countrymen in Ireland would be well satisfied. It gave him sincere pleasure to see the two kingdoms, who had often had subjects of dispute, once more hand in hand co-operating for the same end. At a time when a party of sovereigns at Vienna, with the map of Europe before them, with unhallowed fingers were carving out kingdoms which they were themselves to appropriate; while they were augmenting their subjects and increasing their warlike means in every way; while Saxony was dismembered to gratify one potentate, and Poland was appropriated to satiate the ambition of another, under the exploded pretext of fraternization, it behoved this empire to look well to her own security, and by making herself independent of foreign aid, either for provisions or for soldiers, to prepare against any war into which we might, not long hence, be driven. He did not mean to hold out any gloomy prospects, but assuredly the conduct of our late allies was not such as to justify calculations on a protracted state of tranquility. The chief resource of every country was its agriculture; in proportion as that was improved, population was found to increase; and if due encouragement were given, instead of 18 millions, Great Britain might in a short time have to number 23 millions of inhabitants—not slaves bought, sold, and exchanged, but freemen, attached to the soil that gave them birth, and insured them plenty and prosperity. After adverting to the reverse of the picture, he called the attention of the committee to the relative situation of Great Britain and Ireland with respect to the intercourse carried on between them, the latter paying in corn for the manufactures she obtained from the former, affording to each other the most material support. If the agriculture of the sister kingdom were discouraged, she would no longer be able to supply England with grain, and having no other produce, would be unable to purchase our manufactures now exported to the extent of two millions and a half. Ireland had been the nursery for the soldiers and sailors that had fought our battles, and the garden that had furnished us with subsistence during the struggle.

recommended, that in arguing this question, or any other, general principles should not be lost sight of The most important consideration was unquestionably that of labour, regarding which, much had been said in the petitions, and a strong feeling certainly existed out of doors; but it seemed to be forgotten, that the price of labour would be governed by the price of corn, and that whether it were high or low, was a matter of indifference to the peasant, provided his wages bore the same proportion to it. He observed that it was of the utmost importance, even to the manufacturer, that the agriculturists should be supported, for the decline of the home trade would far outweigh any advantage to be derived from the foreign consumers. The farmers were loaded with the charge of the ecclesiastical establishment—the support of the poor, which had been of late years much increasing—and of the roads, which were of so much benefit to the commerce of the interior. How could it he said, then, that there was a freedom of trade, if the agriculturists were subjected to so many burdens without countervailing advantages? The House should consider whether they would abandon the proposed measure, in acquiescence to the clamors raised against it, or persevere in a line of conduct which they could fairly say, at least, had not impoverished the country; but, on the contrary, had prevented us from depending on foreign nations for the supply of our most necessary wants. It had been said that Buonaparté, with all his efforts, was not able to prevent the importation of corn into this country; but though he had not prohibited the importation, he had changed the prohibition into a tribute. The House might not now apprehend the renewal of that prohibition which had been endeavored to be put in execution; but if the country did not grow corn enough for herself, could she always depend on those nations from which she had been accustomed to draw her supplies? Could the north of Europe, France, and America, be relied on? Was there no danger in depending on the governments of foreign nations? We had hitherto been able to maintain our maritime superiority. But were we sure of being always able to preserve that superiority? If we should lose it, and those countries from which we have been in the habit of drawing our subsistence should be under the control of our enemy, what would be our condi- tion? He thought it better that the price at which importation should be prohibited should rather be too large than too small, as an inadequate standard might be of incalculable evil, whilst a higher nominal price would sooner lower the actual price by forcing capital into the branch of industry in question. He should accordingly support the original resolutions.

thought that any one would be led to suppose from the arguments of many gentlemen, that the corn trade had never before been under any restrictions. There was no greater proof that it was always the intention of the law to protect the farmers, than that the existing law protected them to 63s. per quarter. As that Act was now in operation, and the ports were shut against importation, he should wish to try the effect of the existing law before any alterations were made on it. He thought it appeared to be pretty generally agreed that some price or other must be fixed as a remunerating price to the farmer. That which was fixed in 1804, he was convinced was not sufficient now. He conceived, however, that 80s. was too high a price to fix, and that 72s. would be amply sufficient.

supported the resolutions. He said, he considered that the depression of agriculture would be as injurious to the manufacturer as to the farmer. Who would buy the manufacturers articles, if the landed interest were not able to purchase? The depression of agriculture would be the diminution of the price of those articles. If any one branch of the wealth of nations ought to be encouraged more than another, it was agriculture. It was that on which all depended. It differed from every other source of prosperity, as it was the first necessary. Even were foreign countries able to supply us, we ought not to depend on them. We knew that agriculture had increased our population, Ask the manufacturer himself what was to become of that increased population, if agriculture was depressed. Even should some inconveniences threaten to result from the encouragement of agriculture by keeping up a sufficient price for corn, we ought to run the risk of less evils in order to avoid so great an evil as the decrease of our agricultural population.

wished to call the attention of the House to one of the arguments made use of by those gentlemen who opposed the original resolutions. They asserted, that the only consequence which could result from adopting their plans would be, the throwing out of cultivation a quantity of poor land, and they seemed to think, that this would not be an undesirable thing; because they conceived it was better that capital should be withdrawn from that channel, to be applied to a more profitable purpose. Now, with respect to removing capital from land, it was impossible. The money once laid out in improving land was sunk in it, and could not be recalled. You might, undoubtedly, refrain from sinking any farther sums in its cultivation; but to talk of withdrawing capital from it, was to apply a mere mercantile idea, where the governing principles were entirely dissimilar. He should be glad to know what was meant by the term poor land? Did it apply to clayey, sandy, chalky, or gravelly soils? These soils, it should be observed, produced a great deal of sustenance for the country. If these soils were to be taken out of cultivation, where, he would ask, were they to procure provisions for those who were now fed by them, who were employed in tilling them, and who, if they were given up, would be thrown out of employment? It was clear that they must be fed from the products of that land which was sufficiently rich to grow corn without a very expensive system of agriculture. Would not this raise the price of corn produced on those fine soils? And would not the poor-rates, which the bad soils hitherto helped to defray, be thrown entirely on those of a different description? A private interest seemed too much to be pursued in considering this question. Many, to save a paltry penny in the price of the quartering loaf, would abandon the interest of the landholder, and with it his own ultimate interest. Let the House, for instance, look to the stock-holder. He certainly had jus in rem, but he had not jus in re. Who paid the dividends which he received? Beyond a doubt the land-owners. He meant not to overlook, or to depreciate that which was derived from commerce. But let the rent of the land-owner cease, and where, he would like to know, were the dividends to come from? Those who, conceiving they might suffer a trifling loss from the adoption of the resolutions now before the House, thought fit to oppose them, were, he was satisfied, overlooking interests of major importance; and they would ultimately find, if they refused to grant to agriculture a fair and just protection, that their fortunes were placed on a mere ideal and visionary basis. After the most mature consideration he was able to give the subject, he fully agreed in the propriety of the resolutions.

supported the resolutions. He observed, that unless a drawback was allowed on corn exported from this country equal to the taxes paid by the glower, the export could not be said to be free. So if corn imported was not subjected to duties equivalent to the taxes paid by our farmers, these persons were exposed to an unfair competition. It was said that the foreign grower was also taxed. This was true, but by not taxing corn imported, they allowed the foreign growers to raise imposts on this country. If encouragement was given to manufactures, however detrimental to the health, morals, and happiness of our population, he could conceive no reason why a similar protection should be refused to agriculture.

rose to state the reasons which induced him to support the resolutions introduced by the right hon. gentleman, and to oppose the amendment. He could not but congratulate the committee on the support which the resolutions had received from his Majesty's ministers; and also on the change of opinion which was observable in several gentlemen since the question was last discussed, particularly in the alteration which appeared in the sentiments of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Finally), who represented one of the largest manufacturing cities which returned a member to that House. If he thought the adoption of this measure would have the effect of raising the price of grain, no consideration on earth should induce him to give it his support. But it was precisely because he was of opinion, that an enactment of this kind was necessary to keep down the price of grain, that he should vote for the resolutions. He had listened with great attention to every thing that had been said against those resolutions, and particularly to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment; and, he confessed, he could not find a single argument that appeared to be warranted, either by the principles that ought to govern this question, or by the state of the facts. They had been told, and all the arguments against the resolutions proceeded on the same assumption, that they were about to raise the price of bread-corn; that, by so doing, they would raise the price of labour; and that the consequence would be an increase of the price of manufactures, which would prevent British goods from entering, with any prospect of success, the foreign market. They had also been told, that it would be advantageous for this country to draw its supply of grain from foreign ports, in order to support our manufacturing superiority; and that it was most important 10 leave trade, and the employment of capital, perfectly free. He hoped to show, that those who supported the resolutions were as much impressed with the necessity of leaving free the employment of capital, as the gentlemen who spoke on the other side of the question. Under the circumstances of the country, be was of opinion, that a restriction on the importation of grain, and the giving to the grower, what was not very accurately termed a monopoly of the home market, were the only true means of lowering the price of corn. This position could, he conceived, be proved, by a reference to facts; leaving aside that theory by which so many persons had been led astray. They had, in the tracts on the corn laws, a connected history of the prices of grain, from the commencement of the reign of James 1. And, in applying them to the present case, lest it might be supposed that temporary circumstances had affected them, be had taken his data on long periods:—

Here it was evident, that during this period, when the trade was open, the price of wheat had risen from 1l. 12s. 10d. to 2l. 4s. 4d.—more than one-third. Then came the Act of Charles, which protected he home grower of corn. Under this Act, the average price of corn for 20 years, from 1665 to 1685, was 1l. 16s. 7d. instead of 2l. 4s. 4d. It continued to fall till the year 1764; and it was a very curious circumstance, that the average of 20 years preceding the last-mentioned period, was only 1l. 11s. 8d. per quarter, being considerably below the average of 20 years, ending with the 4th of James 1, notwithstanding the depreciation in the value of money. It was said, that the increased price of corn arose from the increased population, and from the increase of wealth in the country. But, surely, no one could argue, that from the time of Charles 2, up to the year 1764, the country had stood still in those respects; and yet it was very clearly proved, that whatever might, have been the increase of the population, or the augmentation of wealth, the price of grain had decreased, during that period, under the corn laws. In 1764, the corn laws were abolished, and the average price of the quarter of corn stood thus:—For 20 years ending 1784, 2l. 4s. 6d.: For 20 years ending 1804, 2l. 19s. 6d. Thus, they found, that an increase in the price of wheat took place in the reign of James 1, when no restriction existed. The corn laws introduced in the reign of Charles 2, which protected the grower, operated for 100 years, to diminish the price. This system was abandoned in 1764, and the consequence was, that a very great increase of price was occasioned. He would only request of gentlemen to point out some other way in which this effect was produced. Till that was done, he should remain of opinion, that the moderate average was the consequence of wholesome laws, and that the high rate of corn was occasioned by the want of proper protection for the agricultural interest. Much had been said about making this an exporting country. Now, he would state, that England became an exporting country in 1705, and continued so, under the Act of Charles the 2nd, until 1764, when that Act was repealed, and she ceased to export. In the 20 years preceding 1764, 350,000 quarters of corn were exported, on an average; since that period we had been obliged to import. Thus it appeared, from experience, that the regular operation of laws which secured the home-market to the grower, had rendered the price of corn cheaper, and had also enabled us to send grain abroad. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to argue, in answer to those who reprobated the forcing capital, by a bounty, to be employed in channels to which it would not otherwise find its way, that the sacrifice of a little wealth, either where national security or national sustenance demanded it, was, in fact, highly politic; and in support of this opinion, he quoted Dr. Adam Smith. He perfectly agreed with him, that where the security of a country was concerned, it was proper to give up wealth to secure safety—and, in the same manner, where the sustenance of the people was at stake, it was true policy to give up money to obtain food. The forcing capital from one line of industry into another might be injudicious, might be productive of loss to the community; but it could not at all events have the effect of making the article dearer, which it was the object of that line of industry to produce. They had an example in the case of iron. Great duties had been imposed on the import of this article. The consequence was, that iron was now more plentiful in this country than when we had been dependent on foreign nations for that commodity. Now, in so important an article as bread, was it not worth while to lose a little for a time, in order to be hereafter independent of other countries? By Adam Smith, who was so much looked up to on the subject, two cases were stated in which it would be advisable to lay burdens on the competition of foreigners. The first was for the defense of the country, and he instanced the Navigation Act. According to the arguments of the opposes of the Resolutions, the country was a loser by the Navigation Act, and had better have been supplied with freights by foreigners. But if in that case it had been thought proper to sacrifice wealth for safety, we should now sacrifice it for food. He did not fear a continual inundation of foreign corn; but the mischief was, that by interfering with the market, the foreign growers prevented our farmers from stretching the productiveness of the land to the utmost, and when the pinch came, they would not be able to supply us. The next case in which Adam Smith thought restraints should be imposed on foreign competition was, where a tax was imposed on the production of the commodity at home. In this condition was the agriculture. It was the same thing whether a positive tax was imposed on the production of a commodity, or whether it was excluded from benefits enjoyed by other branches of industry. Capital also employed in agriculture was subject to many imposts, from which that employed in other lines was exempted. In the way of exclusion from benefits, agriculture was, in comparison with other branches of industry, most disadvantageously circumstanced, or it might be said most heavily taxed. For such were the duties imposed on the importation of foreign goods of most kinds, that they amounted to an absolute exclusion of competition in, favour of our manufac- turers. For example, woollen cloths imported, paid 100l. per cent., cotton goods 85l. 10s. per cent., glass 114l. per cent., brass and copper goods 59l. per cent., earthenware 79l. per cent., dressed leather 142l. per cent. gold and silver goods 80l., gilt ware 100l., &c. &c. Why, then, was capital employed in agriculture to be subject to such a disadvantage as to be excluded from that protection which the laws afforded to capital employed in all other branches of industry? It was said by some, that this system of protection and exclusion was a bad system. But the system was formed, and it was not proposed to destroy it. And it was necessary to support the impolicy (if it was such) of the legislature, by rendering it uniform, because if any one branch was made an exception, the consequence must be ruinous to it; and if agriculture was the branch in question, the consequence was ruinous to the whole community. Countervailing duties were clearly necessary to the amount of the internal taxation, in the case of agriculture, as much as in other cases. As to the price of 80s. which was fixed by the Resolutions, it had no more to do with the ordinary price of grain than of any thing else. The price would depend on the supply, which would depend on the capital applied to produce it. The price 80s. was the scarcity price; the price at which when the crop was not equal to the consumption, the foreign grower would supply the deficiency of the year. The Resolutions insured to the country that in an ordinary year the price would be much below that price. Such, he conceived, would be the operation of the measures proposed; the price of grain would be lowered, and the country would at the same time be independent in ordinary years, whilst in years of scarcity the deficiency would be supplied from abroad; but if the event was otherwise, the parliament would have it in its power to correct the evil.

began by stating, that he should not pay much attention to the calculations on either side. From the manner in which the question was opened, he had no hesitation in saying, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson)had manifested a more statesman-like mind than any of those by whom his propositions were supported; for that right hon. gentleman had fully recognized the great principles, which, according to them, highest authorities, ought to regulate our com- mercial policy, admitting that a case of necessity should be made out for any deviation from those principles, and that the House had only to balance between cullies—between the nature of the necessity, and the deference that was due to the great radical principle of a free trade. That this principle was entitled to respect, was not, he maintained, the opinion of what were denominated mere modern specialists, but of the soundest thinkers upon commercial policy, aided by the experience of practical men, who most naturally deemed the success of agriculture as the main basis of commercial prosperity. Those, then, who concurred with such thinkers, could not be regarded as theorists only, nor were they fairly liable to the attempts made to depreciate their judgment. He was indeed surprised at these attempts, as if the denomination of political economists' could detract from the authority of any gentleman who opposed the measure before the committee. But who were they who resorted to nicknames upon this occasion? Why, the very men who admitted that the knowledge of political economy required deep reading, and that what appeared paradoxes to superficial observers, were, upon further investigation, Proved to be just and rational views. Those, indeed, who used the nick-name alluded to, endeavored themselves, by the elder-de-main of figures, and a complication of details, to confer a rational character upon a proposition which had all the complexion of a paradox—which, in fact, appeared utterly irreconcilable with reason. But in reviewing these extravagancies, he was glad to find that the report of the committee of that House was not disfigured by such observations as appeared in the report of the other House of Parliament; for in the latter he was really astonished to find these statements:—first, that the price of provisions had truly nothing to do with the price of labour; and, secondly, that the amount of rents had no material influence upon the charges of agriculture. But there was another theory, still more extraordinary, from the advocates of the proposition before the committee, and which, he believed, had never been broached since the days of Cromwell; namely, that the land did not really belong to the proprietors, but to the community.—Nay, in addition to these strange doctrines, an hon. friend of his (Mr. Preston)who was among those by whom theorists had been decried, had that day sent him the tract of the marquis de Mira-beau upon Political Economy, which he had alluded to in his speech, calculating, no doubt, that it would serve to produce an impression upon his mind: but his hon. friend was under a serious mistake as to the nature of that celebrated writer's opinion. For the marquis de Mirabeau belonged to that class of economists who maintained quite an opposite doctrine to that of the hon. gentleman; and also that all the taxes necessary to the support of the state, should be drawn directly from the land.

But as to political economy generally, upon what ground could gentlemen pretend to depreciate its character, unless they meant to deprecate the exercise of reasoning upon the subject under the consideration of the committee? However, in consistency with their system of depreciation, as to political economy, they had thought proper to treat with levity the treatise of Dr. Adam Smith, which was in fact but a collection or digest of maxims; which, instead of being any innovation, had long been held sacred among the best writers this country had ever known. But it was also well known, that the opinions contained in the work of Dr. Adam Smith were, after full examination, recommended by the sanction of our most distinguished statesmen,—by Mr. Pitt for instance, and also by Mr. Burke who traced the history of Dr. Smith's opinions, demonstrating that those opinions, instead of being, as some alleged, mere plagiarisms from those of the French economists, were the original growth of our own country, from which they had been borrowed by the economists of France. The justice, however, of Dr. Smith's great principles was recognized by the statesman-like view of the right hon. opener of this question, who had not given the weight of his authority to the untenable proposition, that because the manufacturers enjoyed some protecting duties, the agriculturists were entitled to the measure he proposed, which was a kind of argumentum ad humane Still less did the right hon. gentleman manifest any disposition to support the assertion, that the agriculturists suffered by the protecting duties granted to the manufacturers; and in what instance, he would ask, could the British agriculturists be conceived so to suffer? From what country could they obtain any article of manufacture necessary for their consumption, at a cheaper rate than they could purchase it at home, supposing trade perfectly free, and that protecting duties, as to manufactures, were totally done away? Could coarse woolen cloths, for instance, be purchased cheaper any where than in England? or could any other article be had on better terms elsewhere? The only article, indeed, which could be supposed cheaper elsewhere was linen, which was the manufacture of Ireland. For himself, however, he had no difficulty in declaring, that all the protecting duties (as they were called) at present in existence in this country, were but so many clogs and impediments to our commercial prosperity; and that, whatever might be the gain, which must be partial and comparatively insignificant, derived probably to the most insignificant in trade, the effect of the whole system must be, that the produce of our natural wealth was considerably diminished.

But, reverting to the main question, and bearing in mind the grounds stated by the right hon. opener, he maintained that no necessity was made out for any departure from the main principles of trade, to the justice of which that right hon. gentleman bore testimony. If the proposition before the committee were merely a temporary measure, to relieve any temporary pressure upon the farmers, he confessed that he should have felt much more difficulty in opposing it; but, as a measure of permanent legislation, he could not hesitate to enter his protest against it. Sympathy for the suffering of individuals would naturally dispose one to plead for the former; but every consideration of sound national policy, which he was able to appreciate, urged him to resist the latter. But the object of granting temporary relief to individual distress, had been disclaimed by the advocates for the proposition-before the committee, who thought proper to rest their pretensions upon considerations of permanent policy; and here he was at issue with them. He was aware of the distress of the agriculturists under existing circumstances, and he had all due feeling for their situation; but, then, he recollected the cause of that situation, which recollection was necessary to a due estimate of the policy of this measure. The present distress of the agriculturists was owing to the great stimulus which the circumstances of the war had given to agriculture; which stimulus was now withdrawn. The operation of that stimulus, which offered a strong proof of the prosperity and health of our commercial system, encouraged the farmers to offer exorbitant rents for land, and also to lay out large sums upon that land; they must naturally suffer by the cessation of such a stimulus. They had, in fact, been too sanguine in their speculations, and hence the losses of which they now complained. But the farmers were not the only persons who suffered from too extensive speculations. Such sufferings, also, too frequently happened in every branch of trade, and did it therefore follow that an application should be made to parliament to repair the loss? It would, indeed, be impossible for parliament to make good such losses; and it would be unjust to make an attempt to withdraw from the profits of other classes of the community, to repair the losses sustained by any class of unsuccessful speculators.

But, in considering the case of the agriculturists (as an exception was demanded in their favour), in looking at their present difficulties or losses, the House was called upon, in justice, to look also to the cause of that loss, which naturally brought into view their antecedent profits. The most interesting distress among the farmers—that which in his mind was most entitled to commiseration, was certainly the case of the agriculturists of Ireland: but that case also was the result of the artificial stimulus given to Irish agriculture by the peculiar circumstances of the war. No one, he believed, felt a more lively concern for the interest of Ireland than that of which he was sensible, and which should always regulate his conduct, as he thought it must the mind of every man who duly appreciated the general interests of the empire. He was therefore happy to witness the pregnant proof which the present situation of Ireland afforded of its advancing prosperity. For that situation served, in his view, to demonstrate that its commercial enterprise had of late years been considerably exerted, and that a great quantity of capital had been employed in that most useful branch of industry, its agricultural pursuits. Ireland had therefore experienced a check from the conclusion of peace—[a smile on the other side of the House]. Gentlemen might smile, he said, but he would maintain that this check afforded a proof of the advanced prosperity of Ireland. For the present was notoriously the first instance on record in the history of Ireland in which that country had experienced any check in its domestic circumstances from the conclusion of peace by the mother country; and this check he regarded as an evidence that it partook of our prosperity, the interruption of which naturally occasioned a participation of our losses. Then, as to the disadvantage resulting to the lands lately applied to tillage in this country, upon which a large sum must have been expended, he was fully aware that that disadvantage was entitled to consideration. This disadvantage must be universally regretted. But what relief could be expected by the sufferers from the proposed measure, especially if it were true, as the advocates of this measure alleged, that the effect of it must be to reduce the price of corn? According to the deposition of witnesses before the committee, 96s. per quarter was necessary to enable farmers to grow that article; nay, according to the allegation of some gentlemen, less than 135s. would be insufficient; and how then, in the name of common sense, could the sum be deemed an adequate remuneration for this species of culture? or still more, how could the proposed regulation operate to reduce the price of corn? How, indeed, could gentlemen who supported these depositions and allegations, plead for a measure so self-destructive as the present? The light lands, or those lately devoted to agriculture, must still suffer all the distress that was deprecated, especially through the competition of the more fertile soil of Ireland, and the richer lands of this country; and the result must still be to throw those light lands out of cultivation.

With respect to our independence of foreign supply, he was ready to admit, that if a dependence upon foreign supply were likely to be the result of the existing system, that likelihood would form a legitimate ground for the proposed measure. And here the hon. and learned gentleman took notice of the exception of Dr. Smith with regard to our navigation law, which exception referred to a provision for our national safety, which was, in all cases, a predominant consideration. But, returning to the apprehension of our dependence upon a foreign supply of corn, the hon. and learned member treated that apprehension as quite exaggerated and visionary. Indeed it had been, he observed, most tenaciously maintained by the advocates for this apprehension, that it would be impossible for the whole navy of England to import any err large proportion, much less an adequate supply of corn, for our subsistence. This, however, these gentlemen seemed to feel an admission hostile to their own proposition; and therefore, in order to take off the weight of such admission, they asserted that even a small quantity of imported corn would have a material effect upon the market price. This, however, he could not admit. A comparatively small quantity of imported corn might affect the market price upon a particular day, or for a few days; but the price must ultimately and permanently depend upon the proportion of the supply to the demand, and the proportion of supply from abroad, was in no degree likely to be considerable. But supposing the supply to be even considerable, the apprehensions expressed on this subject were still, in his mind, exceedingly exaggerated and fallacious; nor was it even probable that we should have to depend upon foreign supply to such an extent as to endanger the interests of our own agriculture. A great deal of this apprehension had been propagated, which was negative by the papers on the table, especially with regard to the supply derived from what was called our natural enemy. He would readily admit, that if it could be rendered apparent, that in any event we should have to depend upon France for food, a protecting duty, as it was termed, should be immediately granted to avert such a calamity; and to this grant he would accede, not from any commercial jealousy, which he should always deprecate, but from political jealousy, to which it would, in such a case, be our duty to attend. But what was the fact? Was France a corn-exporting country? Did it not appear from the papers on the table that our great import of corn had been not from France, but from Holland and from Belgium, the sovereign of which was of our own creation? Thus we derived a supply of corn, not from a natural enemy, as France was denominated, but from our own probably permanent ally. But France could never be regarded as a great exporting country of corn. If she were, it would be a proof of her impoverishment; for no rich country was ever a great exporter of corn. No; the poor country was always the exporter of that article to the rich, for which she received manufactures in return. France had, in fact, become for the last year an exporter of corn, in consequence of an extremely redundant harvest, and from the same cause she was an exporter in the year 1810. But France could never be expected to rival this country in agriculture; for from every information that had reached us, her system of agriculture was exceedingly inferior to our own, while her grain was also materially inferior in quality. How, then, could it be apprehended that we should have to depend upon that nation for supply in any event, especially when we had to look not only to Holland as a medium for furnishing the produce of the banks of the Rhine, but to Flanders, to the Baltic, to Poland, and to America also? With a peace, indeed, so consolidated, as the gentlemen on the other side promised, he thought all apprehension on this score quite visionary. But even calculating upon the renewal of war, or the re-appearance of some extravagant tyrant, who, with a combination of all the powers of Europe, should speculate upon our total exclusion from continental commerce, he should still think such an apprehension groundless. For it was notorious from experience, that even when the experiment of this exclusion was made, namely from 1810 to 1812, a larger importation had taken place into this country, especially from France, than was ever known within the same compass at any former period. The apprehension, then, of depriving this country of foreign supply must, under any circumstances, be regarded as totally chimerical—[hear!]. As to a provision to guard against fluctuation of prices, which the advocates of the measure before the committee promised, the hon. member stated, that for the last seven years, when our importation of corn was greater than at any former period, the fluctuation was much less than during any period of the same duration since the Revolution, and this fact he had ascertained by examining the Eton tables. Within the last seven years, too, it was notorious that our agriculture had been in the most flourishing state, much more flourishing, indeed, than when it was most the fashion to grant bounties upon the export, and to impose restrictions upon the import, of corn. So much as to the pretence of a steady price, which was looked for by some gentlemen as the result of the proposed measure. In his opinion, however, the best security for a steady price—that is, for a fair price to the consumer, was not a measure the witnesses adduced to support which deposed that 80s. or even 96s. was necessary to enable the farmer to grow corn, while its advocates argued that its tendency would be to reduce the price of that article, but to leave the dealer in corn subject to this impression, that if he raised his price to an undue rate, corn would be imported. This impression, he conceived, and common sense would sanction the conception, would be the best means of keeping corn at a fair price, and correcting all excesses. On these grounds he felt himself called upon by an imperious sense of duty to resist the proposition before the committee, more especially as no ground of necessity was shown to support it, and as all the arguments adduced in its favour appeared to him utterly fallacious. At the same time he begged it to be understood, that he was most anxious for the interest of agriculture, which he conceived essentially important to our domestic trade, compared to which indeed he regarded every other branch of trade as nugatory. But the proposition before the committee was in his view materially adverse to that interest.

Having said thus much as to agriculture, the hon. and learned member thought it proper, as connected with this subject, to advert shortly to the state of our manufactures, the condition of our laborers in husbandry, and the nature of our finances. As to the first of these, namely, our manufactures, he would ask, was it necessary at this moment to enhance the price of our manufactured articles? The necessary requisites to enable us to preserve our superiority in our manufactures were two, capital and skill. These were not necessarily domiciled in this country; but might, like any of the other goods of fortune, take to themselves wings and fly away: and it was no unfair or unreasonable thing to conjecture, that if to the difficulties under which our manufactures now laboured, were added the proposed regulations as to the price of corn, those would be speedily followed by a departure from this country of the capital and skill which had hitherto given life to our manufactures, seeing we were about in the same breath to multiply the taxes on our manufactures, and to increase the price of corn. The second point to which he had referred, was the condition of laborers engaged in the affairs of husbandry. This, he agreed, did not depend on any defect in the system itself, but on the poor laws, and the mal-administration of them, by which part of the wages of the agricultural labourers was in some districts paid out of the poor-rates. There could, he thought, be no difficulty in framing a law to reach this subject; but certain gentlemen thought it more meritorious to pay such laborers out of the poor-rates, than to suffer an advance of wages to take place; and the very same persons who were outbidding each other in the purchase of leases of lands, seemed the most mis-giving as to the price of labour. It was the high price of corn which had produced this, and would continue it. There was no other way of liberating our peasantry from a state of villain age than by restraining the price of corn. What could be more degrading than that a man in the vigor of healthful labour should receive the allowance of a pauper? It reduced our free labourers to a state of bondage; and this enormous mischief the present measure had the strongest tendency to increase. The third point to which he had alluded, was that of our financial arrangements. The price of the necessaries of life must either enter into consideration in all the arrangements of government, or of the greater part of them. It might be asked, How would you pay the dividends on the national debt unless you were to keep the rate of provisions high? To this he could only say, that it was true the country had raised large sums at a diminished rate, and that they would have to pay them at a higher rate on account of the artificial state of their money; but was any man hardy enough to say that that artificial state ought to be kept up? If so, that man must be guilty of a continual fraud on those great creditors of the country on whom this deceit had originally been practiced. Observe, then, what was our situation. With exhausted manufactures—with a debt accumulating out of all proportion—and with our labourers paid out of our poor-rates, were we still to lengthen out this artificial mode of proceeding? The man who could look such a situation in the face, had stronger nerves than he had. The best course, according to his idea, was to do nothing. Eighty shillings per quarter was a minimum which, he was satisfied, even from the evidence before the committee, it was not necessary to fix; but the minimum might have been safely fixed at a much smaller sum.

felt it impossible to give a silent vote on a question which, it was agreed on all hands, was one in which all classes were interested. It was a subject complicated with every question, arising out of political economy, which could at any time engage the attention of the statesman; and that such a question should induce a difference of opinion, was not at all surprising. The Report of the committee, with the drawing of which some fault had been found, went only to this, that the surveyors, in their evidence, proved, that for a number of years lands had never been let for less than 10s. per bushel, or 80s. per quarter, a fact which was borne out by the evidence of Mr. Webb, a witness relied upon on the other side. He then proceeded to show that the Report was not liable to any of the other objections thrown out against it by other hon. members. In adverting to the principle of foreign supply, and the consequences likely to result from it to our native agriculture, the right hon. gentleman put the supposition that the arable land of England were to produce one-fifth less than it now produced. Would not France, in that case, do what Ireland had done? Would not her agriculture receive a stimulus from our demand? There were many who could remember when Ireland was an importing country; yet now, from our encouragement, and that alone, she had become largely an exporting one. An hon. member had said, why not try the experiment, and put other countries in the same condition with respect to ourselves that Ireland was? He would tell the hon. gentleman why that experiment would not do. Ireland was under our control, and other countries were not; besides, did not Ireland receive our manufactures in return, and were we quite sure that other countries would do so? But Ireland was compelled to receive them. France would unquestionably increase her exports, if we afforded her sufficient encouragement, by pouring our capital into the hands of her agriculturists. He could tell the committee that large imports from France had arrived on the southern coast of England, where the markets were so overstocked, that the English farmer could not get a bidding for his grain at any price. He had seen the invoices of those cargoes; and after all the charges of conveyance were added, they could afford to sell the corn so imported under 50s. It had been said that the price of provisions had no influence upon the wages of the labourer; it was a novel theory, and one which scarcely required refutation; for nothing could be more obvious than that in the long run the one must affect the other. What would be the effect if the agriculture of the country were allowed to fall back, as was recommended by another hon. member? The capital was so amalgamated and incorporated with the general improvement of land, in draining, embanking, &c. that it was impossible for the agriculturist to withdraw it in the same way as might be done in commercial speculations; the capital so invested, therefore, would be so much national wealth thrown away. Nothing could be more delusive than the opinion that cheapness in the price of provisions was always a benefit. On the contrary, cheapness without a demand for labour was a symptom of distress. The French had cheapness without capital; and it was a proof of progressive decay. An hon. gentleman who spoke on the preceding evening had indulged in some observations upon the greater luxury in which our farmers now lived, and lamented that they sometimes preferred a bottle of wine to a mug of ale. For his own part, he thought the change extremely natural; and that it was the necessary consequence of improved skill, and enlarged profits. Had not the same effects taken place in the commercial world? Did not our merchants now think it desirable to exchange the city for the squares at the west end of the town? And instead of dining at one or two o'clock, with their clerks, as their forefathers did, were they not now to be seen sitting down to a table profuse in its variety of dishes, at six and seven o'clock? But he did not complain that it was so. He honoured the industry, and gloried in the success which occasioned it; and though the comparison might appear invidious, he was driven into it by the equally invidious comparison made by the hon. gentleman. From the whole of the evidence which had been given before both Houses of Parliament, it was clear, in his opinion, that less than 80s. as a protecting price, would not remunerate the farmer; but that at that price he would be remunerated, if properly protected. Nor did he at all anticipate the dangers which seemed to be apprehended, that because 80s. were fixed as the protecting price, corn could never be at a less price, as the experience of the last century abundantly proved that the market price of corn was frequently, nay, almost always below the protecting price. In behalf of the agriculturist, in behalf of the manufacturer, in behalf of the public creditor, in behalf of the whole community, he recommended the adoption of his right hon. friend's proposition.

said, that although he would not withdraw his amendment, he would not inconvenience the committee by pressing it to a division.

Mr. Baring's amendment was then negative without a division.

, moved another amendment, namely, to substitute 76s. for 80s. as the price at which the prohibition of importation was to take place.

inquired whether or not it was intended to make any alteration in the mode of taking the averages?

observed, that if the averages were calculated on principle of comprehending quantity as well as value, 76s. a quarter would afford the agricultural interest a security as great as they would derive from 80s. in the event of a continuation in the present mode of taking them.

A long conversation ensued on the comparative merit of the two modes of taking the averages, in which Mr. Rose, Mr. Baring, Mr. Robinson, Mr. W. Smith, Sir W. Geary, Mr. F. Lewis, Mr. Alderman Atkins, Mr. Cal craft, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, &c. participated. Mr. Baring, as the question seemed to create great diversity of opinion, moved that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. Whitbread supported this proposition. Mr. Huskisson recommended to the committee to adhere to the old method of taking the average.

, understanding that the rate of 80s. according to the present mode of taking the average, would not press more heavily on the consumer than the rate of 76s. if the new mode of taking the average were adopted, withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Protheroe moved, as an amendment, to substitute 76s. for 80s. the mode of taking the average remaining as it was.

The gallery was then cleared for a division; but the committee continued in debate for above an hour, in the course of which Mr. Whitbread recommended, as the channel for communicating their proceedings to the public was closed, that they should adjourn. The question of adjournment was negatived without a division; and on an amendment moved by Mr. Baring, to substitute 72s. for 80s., a divi- sion ultimately took place, when the numbers were,

At half past three in the morning, the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.