thought that the Bill would throw a great burthen on the city of London, by not being extended to the King's-bench prison, the Fleet and Marshal sea. He had no objection to the principle of the Bill, which he considered founded on humanity; but as he thought it unjust that it should not extend alike to all goals, he would recommend to let it lie over for some time.

could not see how the city of London could be at all injured by the Bill. He had already explained, that no prisoner could remove himself to the city goals by Habeas Corpus. He therefore could not consent to any postponement.

said, that the persons fearing arrest would get their friends to arrest them in Loudon, in the goals of which they would have no fees to pay, rather than wait to be arrested where they would have to remove themselves to the King's-bench, the Fleet, or Marshalsea prison, where they would have fees to pay. If the hon. gentleman would pledge himself to bring in a bill to abolish the fees of those three prisons, he would not object to the present Bill.

said, he would move for a committee to inquire into the state of the fees of those prisons, but that he could not as yet pledge himself to any farther measure.

thought it wonderful why the hon. gentleman should have any objection to extend the benefits of his Bill to the unfortunate prisoners in the King's bench prison, the Fleet, and the Marshalsea, more than the prisoners of any other goals. Were they not equally entitled to pity and to relief? Did the hon. gentleman conceive that they were more criminal than any other prisoners? He had no objection that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should pay the gaolers of the city prisons out of the consolidated fund, as well as the gaolers of the King's. bench and the Fleet. But if the hon. gentleman would not consent to let his Bill lie over for some time, or pledge himself to bring in a bill for abolishing the fees of the King's-bench, Fleet, and Marshal-sea, he should think it his duty to take the sense of the House on the measure.

said, that the Bill extended to all county goals; but that the goals of the courts of judicature were different from county goals, and that, therefore, it might be necessary to provide for the latter differently from the former.

thought the city of London bound to maintain its prisons without any such aid as the goal fees.

gave great credit to the principle of the Bill. The city did not desire exemptions from public burdens, but objected to the exemption of the three large prisons for debtors, the effect of which on them would be, that many persons arrested in London or the country, to gain the benefit of lord Redesdale's Act, would be fixed on them. If this Bill was good generally, why not so, as respected those three great prisons? On what principle could they be excepted? Why should not the benefit of these wise alterations be generally extended? He hoped the hon. member would reconsider this subject.

The Bill went through the committee.

, adverting to a declaration made by a worthy alderman on Friday evening, that if the proposed measure respecting corn were carried into effect, bread would probably be 14d. or 16d. the quarter loaf, lamented that a statement so unfounded, and so calculated to mislead and agitate, had gone forth to the public. He had sat formerly in a committee on the assize laws, and it had at that time been agreed by the committee, and even by interested individuals who were in attendance, that it was fair to consider six bushels and three quarters of wheat as equal to a sack of flour. If this were so, then when wheat should be 80s. a quarter, the quarter loaf, including all charges, ought not to be more than one shilling. Against this statement there were only some imaginary and absurd differences between the average of wheat in the market, and the wheat of which it was fit to make flour for bread. To set this matter in a clearer light, he would move, "That there be laid before the House an account of the average prices of wheat at the Corn-exchange, per quarter, and of flour, per sack, from the year 1759 to the end of the year 1814; distinguishing the variations in the same from month to month in each year."

, in reply to the observations made by the hon. gentleman, on what had fallen from him on Friday, said, that facts were better than theories at all times; and the facts were these, namely, that for ten years, viz. from 1804 to 1813 inclusive, the average price of wheat had been 88s. 8d. a quarter, of flour 81s. 5¾d. and of the quarter loaf 14½d. He had been given to understand, that if the average price of wheat throughout England should be 80s. a quarter, the fine wheat of which the flour was made for the bread consumed in the city of London, would be 95s. He allowed that this was a point of speculation, but he stated it on the best information he had been able to obtain,

observed, that it was rather singular that because the worthy alderman stated that while wheat was at 88s. a quarter, the quarter loaf was at 14d. the worthy alderman should thence conclude, that under the operation of a measure by which corn could not be raised to a price above 80s. a quarter the quarter loaf would be 16d.! [Hear! hear!]

, in reply to the last observation of the hon. gentleman, contended, that in no event would wheat, by the operation of the new measure, be left under 80s. and that the measure would have a constant tendency to keep it above that price. He had no doubt the worthy magistrate was accurately informed with respect to the facts which he had stated to the House. The effect of the measure would be to enhance the prices of bread, and to put a bounty into the pocket of the grower; and with reference to an observation made by the hon. gentleman who had made the present motion, as to the danger of making such remarks, he would ask how the question could fairly be argued without making them? He wished to say nothing to inflame the public mind; but he knew of no way in which he could argue the question, if he did not say that he thought the measure was an attempt to enhance the price of bread, and to procure a bounty for the growers of corn. Fairly, he could not argue it, without looking on that as its inevitable result.

suspected that there was some gross deception used by those who were between the growers and consumers of corn—the corn-dealers, the meal-men, the bakers, &c. in the city of London, by which the public were prevented from having bread at a fair and moderate price [Hear, hear!] He contended, that if an investigation were set on foot into the way in which the market was managed, it would so be found, and that it would also be found, that when the average price of bread was 80s. a quarter, the quarter loaf need not be more than 1s. The object of the measure was to prevent wheat from ever being more than 80s. a quarter, and at the same time to give confidence to the agriculturist, in order that he might produce a sufficient supply.

quoted the averages of the different districts to prove that there was a difference of 21s. a quarter between some of them and the average of the whole; while that of London differed but 2s. from the average of the whole. It was, indeed, impossible that any combination of dealers could keep up the average in the city of London.

said, it was well ascertained that if the average price of wheat were at 63s., the quarter loaf would be at 11½d. and if the price were 80s. the same loaf would be 1s. 3d. He hoped, therefore, the House would suspend their judgment till such time as they could reconcile and fix the averages with a view to the general benefit of the public.

said, the proportion between the price of wheat and bread was regulated by statute. The law said, that when the average price, that was, the price of good, bad, and middling wheat was so much, that the price of the quarter loaf should be so much; that, for instance, when the quarter of wheat was 79s. 8d. the quarter loaf should be at 1s. When wheat was 79s. 8d. the proportion that the price of the sack of flour ought to bear to it was 66s. 8d. This was the positive enactment of the statute on the subject.

said, the price of bread in the metropolis was not fixed by the average price of wheat, but by the average price of flour. It was in the power of magistrates to fix the assize either by the average price of wheat or the average price of flour; and the magistrates of London had generally been of opinion that the fairest way of fixing it was by the price of flour.

expressed himself obliged to the hon. gentleman (Mr. F. Lewis) for the valuable information which he had communicated to the House on the subject of averages. He had always been unable to account for the circumstance of the price of bread being invariably higher in London than in the rest of the country. The difference had been often stated as high as 10 per cent. In a paper before the House, it was distinctly stated, that for eight or nine years back the price of bread had been 3d. higher in London than in the other market towns of England. This perplexed him extremely. At first he thought it might have arisen from a monopoly among the millers; but he was afterwards convinced that this could not be the cause, because flour had been imported from all parts of the country to London. How, with this permission to import, the prices had always continued so much higher in London than elsewhere, was a subject which was utterly inexplicable to him; and he conceived it might be a fit object for inquiry.

said, he would explain why the price of flour was so much higher in London than in the country. In the one case, 371 pounds was allowed for a quarter of wheat; and in the other, 437 lb. making a difference of 66 pounds in the quarter.

The return was then ordered.

moved for an account, from the first week of November last, to the 18th of February, containing returns of the quantities of grain sold during that period, from which the averages had been estimated, framed in such a manner that the weekly averages might be seen.

observed, that the subject of averages was the point on which the discussion hinged, and without some information as to what the intentions of his Majesty's ministers on that subject were, the House scarcely knew what they were to look forward to. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) had stated, in opening the question, that no alteration whatever was to take place as to fixing the averages. It was well known that there was a great variation in the mode of taking the averages in different districts. In some, Scotch grain was excluded; in some, Irish grain; in some, both; and in others, neither. Was he to understand that in future the average was to be taken from the quantity, as well as the price of the grain sold? If it was in contemplation to pass the Bill with the present mode of taking the averages, then it might be proper to reduce the importation price, it might be reduced from 30s. to 76s. the quarter; but if there was to be an alteration with respect to the averages, then the House were totally in the dark. Farmers and landlords had not hitherto had the benefit of the law as it existed. It was well known that corn had been lower in all the markets of the country than the importation price, long before the importation was stopped; and that the farmers could not obtain a price for their corn, in consequence of the competition of foreign corn in our market.

said, he certainly did state on opening the subject, that he was sensible of the objections to the existing mode of taking the averages, but that he did not see how that mode could be got rid of, and that he conceived it better to leave the subject as it was, than to substitute any other mode in its place. He still adhered to that opinion. Whatever, therefore, the House should think proper to fix with respect to the importation price, they would do it on the understanding that the averages were to remain as at present. That there was a difference between the present mode and others which might be devised, he was willing to admit; but he was convinced the more the subject was examined into, the more difficult it would be found to come to any precise knowledge of that difference. One week there was a difference of 4s. and another week a difference of 5d. With respect to the observation of the noble lord, on excluding Scotch and Irish corn in the average, the law required British corn, including Scotch corn, but excluding Irish and foreign corn.

The return was then ordered.

rose for the first time. He said, it was with considerable reluctance he stood up to oppose a string of resolutions which had been sanctioned by so large a majority. From the short time he had sat in the House, it might perhaps be deemed presumptuous in him to differ so directly in opinion from so many gentlemen of much longer parliamentary experience than he had to boast; but he felt himself imperiously called on by what he deemed his duty, to enter his serious protest against these resolutions, and the principle on which they were founded. If he understood that principle right, the landholders now came forward and claimed from the House and the country a compensation for the capital which they had invested in the improvement of their own estates. Surely, by the same rule, the manufacturers had an equal right to come to the House, and ask a compensation for the capital they had expended in enlarging their several manufactories, in obtaining new machinery, and in the purchase of raw materials, which, during many years of the late war, had lain by them a mere drug and a dead weight. The manufacturer, however, had taken no such step; he was content to take his chance in both the home and foreign market, and to depend on the goodness and superiority of his manufactures to fetch him such a price as might remunerate him, both for the capital he had laid out, and the labour he had bestowed. He was content that the wares he dealt in should go fairly to market, and there find their own level against every sort of competition. The landholders, on the contrary, not satisfied with the high prices of corn during so many years of war, which had in all instances doubled their rents, and in many had trebled them, came to the House and required at its hands a compensation for that capital, which had already procured them so many advantages, in the continual advance of their rents during so long a period of time,—during all which the middling and labouring classes of the community had been struggling with difficulties, and patiently and loyally suffering privations from which they could expect no deliverance if these resolutions should be carried into effect,—privations which they had all along been promised they should be relieved from, when Providence should send them the blessings of peace. Those blessings, so long looked for, and so much desired, had been granted, by our being now at peace with all the world; and yet, if these resolutions were carried, into effect, the manufacturers and the labouring classes must greatly suffer, because the high price of corn must increase the price of labour, and that could not be done without endangering the manufacturer's competition in all foreign markets. He was decidedly of opinion, that no body of men, however respectable, ought to expect a compensation for the capital they expended for their own benefit, or for the taxes they paid in common with other bodies of men, according to their several circumstances in life. He must, therefore, once more protest against the resolutions, and object to the report being brought up.

said, that the tendency of the arguments of the opponents of the present measure, was to reduce the people of this island to depend for bread on the will of foreigners—to reduce the people of England to the necessity of being fed by the charity of France. He was far from asserting that such a high tax on corn would be imposed by foreign governments, or that they would prohibit it from being exported to England. The question was, whether parliament in its wisdom would reduce the people of England to depend on foreign states. The House were to consider whether domestic corn could contend in our markets with foreign corn. That foreign corn would drive the home corn out of the market, and that we could not contend with foreigners, was a point which all were nearly agreed on. No man could look at the reports and the evidence without being convinced, that without an alteration in the existing laws, we must be undersold by foreigners in our own markets. The growers of foreign corn were not subject to the burdens paid by our agriculturists, and could therefore afford to sell their produce much cheaper. The question was, whether the farmers of this country should give up tillage for want of that encouragement and protection which was afforded to the manufacturer. That countries of such extent and capacity of improvement as England and Ireland, should be allowed to lie waste, and that we should derive those supplies from foreign countries which our own was so well able to yield to us, was a proposition of so monstrous a nature, that he wondered how it could have been entertained.

It had been argued as if the protection afforded to tillage would have the effect of driving our manufacturers out of the market of Europe, and as if the prosperity of our manufactures and our agriculture were two things altogether incompatible. But there was no evidence to show that a fair protection to the agriculturist was incompatible with the success of our manufactures. The manufacturers had made out no case to show, that if corn were to be at 80s. the quarter, the manufactures could not be successfully carried on, but that if it were at 75s. the manufactures would flourish. The language of the manufacturers seemed to be this; pay us an enormous price for our manufactures, and give up tillage, that we may be enabled to sell our goods cheap to other countries. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to examine the opinion of Dr. Adam Smith respecting the price of labour. He was aware that the price of corn did influence the price of labour; but it was also influenced by other articles of prime necessity which were to corn in the proportion of two to five. Corn was a necessary, but not the only necessary of life. The rule of an unlimited freedom could not be applied till the consent of all the other nations of the globe was obtained. While a protection was given to all our manufactures, was corn to be the only exception? and were husbandmen to be deprived of that protection and encouragement which was given to every other class in the community? The language of the manufacturers was this; give us such a price as we please for our cloth and our hardware, and allow us to give you such a price as we please to give you for your corn. It was not enough to say, that the people ought to be allowed to procure corn from the places where it could be got cheapest; it was necessary also to show that the foreign markets were perpetually accessible.

Much had been said respecting the commercial relationship of the country, by those who seemed to have forgotten that the political relationship was much more important, and in fact governed the whole. The existence of the nation depended upon grain; those who supplied us had our lives in their hands—they were the masters of our very being; our resources, our finances, our trade, must depend upon the will of others; and would it be wise to put the trident itself into the hands of those who would be our enemies, the moment it ceased to be their interest to be our friends? Instead of continuing a physically independent, we should become a physically dependent people. Suppose we were morally certain that we could obtain a supply of grain from abroad, did it follow as certainly that we could obtain that supply at a cheap rate? Might it not at some future period be the policy of the country from which it was derived, to lay a heavy duty upon corn? and might not England, that had ruined her own agriculturists, be compelled to pay an exorbitant tax for the very subsistence of her inhabitants The market at home was always certain, the market abroad always uncertain; by looking only to the home market, we should encourage all branches of trade, as well the merchant as the agriculturist; by looking to the foreign market, we should effectually throw our own land out of tillage. With the assistance of Ireland, the empire was independent of the world. By discouraging the farmer, we not only made the whole world independent of us, but we actually degraded ourselves into supplicants and petitioners to those who had been our bitterest enemies. Let us employ and foster our own means, and we should have more corn than any amount to which even the imagination could extend. Give to Ireland the encouragement to which she was entitled, and the question would not be whether we wanted corn, but how we should dispose of our abundance; then, indeed, would arise another care for the government; for the grower might be smothered in his own abundance. How many thousand acres were there in Great Britain yet uncultivated? how many thousand more in Ireland, that might, by due encouragement, be converted into the best land for the production of wheat? And would the House consent to cast away food placed in our own power, for the miserable and mistaken policy of procuring grain cheaply for one year, and of entailing dependence and famine upon the country ever afterwards?

It had been formerly the practice of England to repress Ireland, to keep back her produce and manufactures; but she had flourished notwithstanding; and after a series of years she had now become an exporting, instead of an importing country; and in 1806, during the administration of a right hon. baronet, (Sir John Newport) the intercourse was opened between the two countries, without restriction. The result was, that Ireland was at this time a great agricultural country, and was able to supply to this country more than two millions of quarters annually, and actually at one period covered the whole demand of Great Britain, notwithstanding the great increase of her population. What had been the cause of this improvement, but the stimulus given by the possession of the home market? Having raised Ireland to this situation, would parliament, by rejecting the measure before the House, compel her agriculturists to neglect the land they had so industriously brought into tillage? Would it consent that the population that had fed us should themselves be starved? Her industry had now raised her to importance in agriculture; and was it the wish of the opponents of this measure, that she should change her system and become of importance in manufactures; she would then be converted into a subsidiary country in respect of supply, and a rival country in respect of manufactures. That would be the result of the arguments of the opponents of these Resolution—and was that what they desired? The right hon. gentleman then took a short view of the state of the finances of Ireland, proving that she transmitted large sums to this country, by means of remittances to absentees, and the purchase of woolens and other manufactures. Were her agriculture destroyed, how would she he able to continue these payments? It was a question not merely touching those connected with Ireland, but the whole landed and commercial interest of this portion of the empire. At present the remittances to absentees were calculated at two millions; by proper regulations, by the improvement of their estates, the sum would be augmented one-third; and by reducing the farmers, not only this additional third would be withdrawn, but perhaps half of the original sum that had been hitherto transmitted. There were, however, higher considerations, that must have more weight than any thing he had hitherto stated; Ireland was a country with many prejudices against England, some of them well founded—she was connected by ties that at various periods had appeared in danger of being destroyed; at present the union appeared firm and lasting; but it remained for this country either to weaken the bonds or to render them indissoluble. How was this to be effected? By making the two countries mutually dependent upon each other. Ireland, if this Bill were passed, would continue to take the manufactures of Great Britain, and Great Britain would continue to take the grain of Ireland. Thus they would be united, not merely by the link of law, but by the firmer bonds of absolute necessity. The two countries, with the same general interests, instead of rivals, would become fires and steady friends—they would be physically identified with each other—mutually dependent upon each other—and for ever mutually independent of the rest of the civilized globe. On these grounds he gave his entire concurrence to the Resolutions before the House.

was anxious to correct a mistake that seemed to prevail in the House, that the interests of the landholder and of the manufacturer were conflicting and incompatible. They were, in the view of enlightened policy, the same; and the success or ruin of the one, was the success or ruin of the other; inasmuch as the country generally had been enriched by the sale of our manufactures, the landholders had received their share of the wealth and advantages. It had been the wise policy of former governments to keep the price of the chief article of subsistence as low as possible; upon this principle Mr. Pitt had acted with success, but the system was now about to be changed. It was undoubtedly true, that the rent of land would be diminished by the unlimited importation of corn; but if the Resolutions upon the table passed in their present shape, the manufactures of the towns would be destroyed, and the land must consequently be depreciated; corn might be grown, but paupers would be the only customers for it. It was in truth impossible to separate the two interests. The value of land within memory had increased in some places three-fold; the owners had derived their benefit from the political state of things, and now they must suffer the depreciation produced by an alteration in that political state. With respect to our manufacturers, it was allowed, that during the war our triumphant situation on the sea had enabled us to force a trade without rivals; but now we were open to competition, it would be madness in us to throw fresh obstacles in the way of those who had so many to contend against. In his opinion, it might be fairly argued that the manufacturer had been the great benefactor of the landed interest. He did not say that his design was to serve the land-owner. That had been the effect of the flourishing state of our manufactures, and in the difficulties now to be encountered the land-owner ought to participate. By the measures now upon the table the wise system pursued for years was about to be subverted, and the labourers prevented from putting the real wealth of the country into that marketable shape by which this country had hitherto been made the envy of surrounding nations.

observed, that the present question was not whether any restriction at all should be imposed, for it appeared to be admitted on all hands, that some provision of this kind was necessary. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) had made some severe observations on the landed interest; he seemed to think that they wished to bolster up their high rents by a legislative enactment; but surely no person could think of seriously insinuating such a charge. When such an observation was made with reference to the land-owners, they might retaliate, and accuse the great and opulent merchants who opposed the restriction, with a design to extend their commerce, by throwing open this trade. Now he believed, on his conscience, that no such feeling existed in any quarter of that House. He was convinced, that both the merchants and the landholders wished to decide this question in the way most beneficial to the community at large. His hon. friend who spoke last had very justly observed, that the interest of the manufacturer was the same with that of the land-owner. He was correct in his statement; and the persons who endeavored to excite a diversity of opinion between those two interests, could not effect any good by their efforts. An hon. and learned gentleman on a former evening had admitted, that the question was, whether this country could be supplied with corn from her own immediate resources; or whether it was not necessary that her supply should come from abroad? And he had particularly observed, that, if it could be proved, that the system of a free trade would oblige this country to depend on France for the necessary of life, it would be sufficient to make him change his opinion. Now, he would place himself on this ground, that England could be rendered perfectly free of foreign countries for a supply of corn—and this the hon. and learned gentleman himself had admitted to be a most desirable thing. The hon. and learned gentleman seemed to argue on this question, as if it were a new case—as if the legislature had never before imposed any restriction on the importation of corn. But every one knew, that the very principle they were now preparing to act on, had been adopted, if not from the times of Charles the 2nd, at least from those of king William; and was, in fact, as old as any other part of the system which governed the trade of this country. It was true, that, on a question of so delicate and critical a nature, as one affecting the food of the people, a case of necessity should be made out by those who proposed any alteration in the law. That necessity, he conceived, had been admitted by almost every person who had taken a part in the debate. All agreed that a restriction should take place, though a difference of opinion existed as to the importation price; some preferring 74s. some 76s. and some 80s. He here protested against what had fallen from some of those who had delivered their sentiments. He could not consider this question, as it related to the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, merely in a commercial point of view, on the same footing as it might be considered with reference to Bremen or Hamburg. It was indeed said, that this was a commercial and manufacturing country. He could not admit this in the sense attached to the appellation by some gentlemen. That it was a great commercial country he allowed—but it was a great agricultural country before it was a commercial one. Nay, even if its commerce and manufactures were to be annihilated, it would still continue a great country, and maintain its independence throughout Europe. It certainly neither had been nor would be so dependent upon its manufactures as the hon. baronet, who had just spoken, had conceived it to be. But those who thought that our manufactures, which had continued to flourish during the extraordinary events of the long revolutionary war, would be equally successful now the nations of the continent were in a state of profound peace, might find themselves egregiously deceived. The French people, now brought back to order, would be anxious to prevent their introduction. At all events it would be too much to suppose that we ought to sacrifice every thing to our manufactures.—But the advocates of the manufacturing interests had not condescended to tell us in what manner the proposed measure would have the effect of raising the price of corn. If our manufacturers should not henceforward be able to compete with foreign countries, the circumstance would not be owing to this measure. But the Bill was not intended to raise the price of corn; its object was to prevent the foreigner from coming into this country with his produce, to the injury of our own, and even to an extent which would be ruinous. For many years after the prices had been fixed, from an early part of the last century till 1764, the price was always lower than it had been before, because the agriculturist felt himself so much at ease as to be able to afford corn at a reasonable price. It would be the height of absurdity to give the community reason to believe that for a year or two only, they might have corn at a very low price, and after that to let them have the prospect of its being considerably dearer. It was folly to talk of the impossibility of this country not being able to grow corn enough for its whole consumption. From a calculation which he held in his hand it appeared, that taking Great Britain and Ireland together, the superficial contents were 63 millions of acres, and the population of the empire about 17 millions. Supposing that 12 millions out of the 17 eat wheaten bread, and that the rest subsisted on oats or other grain, and that each individual of the former portion consumed about a quarter of wheat, did any man believe that the land would not produce the whole of the quantity required? He would admit, that he had been a great septic on the subject of the necessity of importation; but he had altered his opinion, on minutely examining into it. In the last year it appeared that 670,000 quarters of corn had been imported; but of these, 430,000 were imported from Germany, Holland, Flanders, and France, all within the last quarter of a year. He would not take into the account any importations which might come from America or from Poland, because the circumstances of expense, of freight, and navigation, and the distance from which they would be brought, would operate against the introduction of any material quantity; but as to the importations from the rest of Europe, it would in a moment be seen, that if 430,000 quarters of wheat, and 200,000 of oats could be imported in one quarter of a year from countries of the continent, independent of France,—the agricultural interests of this country must be placed in a state of imminent hazard.—With respect to the opinions of the Corporation of London upon this subject, he did not place much reliance upon them. It was not the same corporation that existed in the time of William or of Anne, or in that of the two first princes of the House of Brunswick. And when he looked to the public principles which had lately emanated from that body, and considered the purposes to which they had occasionally lent themselves, he could not withhold the remark, that they were not entitled to the same respect as heretofore. It was very natural that a great and populous city, like that of London, should desire to have their bread at a cheap rate, without regarding the means by which that end was acquired. It was immaterial to them whether the corn came from France or from Poland, or from whence, it came, so as bread was at a low price; but he could not help saying, and he was sure the House would agree with him in thinking, that it was impossible so great a mass of people could be capable of forming a judgment of those measures which were best calculated for the advantage of the community at large, and the more especially, when it was recollected that their own personal interest was at variance with that of the great body of the public. It was impossible for such people to argue on the subject; and on this account he would not give way to their opinion. It was this outcry for cheap bread which demolished the Roman power; Panem et circuses was the demand of the people; the demagogues joined in the clamor, and the government was at Tait obliged to furnish them with bread gratuitously; then they neglected the cultivation of their own fertile lands, and looked for their supplies to Sicily and to Egypt; but after this, the hardy race of labourers—rustic rum macula militum paroles—became extinct. With the loss of agriculture went their liberty, their power soon followed, and hence the fall of that once great and flourishing city. The inhabitants of London amounted to one million, and if these depended upon France and Holland and Flanders, for corn, what would become of Kent, of Sussex, and of Essex? As it was, in consequence of the importations from abroad, he well knew that scarce a farmer had sent a grain of corn to market. The price, in fact, at which it was selling, would not pay them for their labour. How was it possible that the agriculture of this country could bear a competition with the agriculture of France or Flanders The ports of those countries lay fully as convenient for the London market as the ports of Norfolk, or even Essex. To his own knowledge there were farmers within 25 miles of the metropolis that could not sell their corn at all. The miller would not buy a grain of it while they could be supplied with foreign corn. If the city of London was to be fed entirely on foreign corn, it would probably have the effect of making corn cheaper for a few years, but in the end it would entirely put down the agriculture of this kingdom. Some corn land might, indeed, be laid down for pasture, but a great part of it would soon be occupied by thistles and brambles. Could it, then, be a matter of doubt for an instant, whether we ought to encourage foreign corn in preference to our own? There surely could be no idea of any thing so absurd. Suppose, for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, the foreign powers should, at a future period, stop the exportation of corn, what would become of us, if, from its previous inundation, we had suffered the agriculture of our own country to decline? It had been said, that this country would cease to be great, without a preponderance in commerce and manufactures. Those who thought so, should cast their eyes back upon what had lately happened. We had seen a great country—great without either manufactures or commerce, which had conquered nearly the whole of Europe. He would never admit that the agriculture of our country should be thrown back—such a measure would be an act not only of the most serious impolicy, but of injustice; and he was persuaded, that if the matter was fairly stated, the poorest man in the country would exclaim 'No!' to such a proposition. With regard to the price, there was a difference of opinion, as to whether it should be 72s. 76s. or 80s. He was at first rather for the low price; but a low price had always, in his mind, been coupled with the notion of a graduated scale of prices, and he had thought that if 76s. were taken as the first price for opening the ports, then it might be carried up to 80s., or till the price at which corn might be imported free; but when it was resolved to fix a price, without a scale of advance, then he was for 80s. For as the averages were admitted to be incorrect, and as they did not give a fair advantage to the farmer, he had a right to expect the higher price rather than the lower. On the whole, he was never more convinced of any thing in his life than that this measure was necessary; and he thought that its adoption would not fail to restore that confidence which was now lost amongst our agriculturists. It never could raise the price of bread; but its effect would be to give us a supply at home, and when a time of scarcity might happen we should be able to get a supply from abroad. On these grounds he should vote for the reception of the Report.

said, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in the supposition that he would have come to no less a conclusion than that the security of the country depended upon the adoption of the measure of which he had proved himself so strenuous an advocate. After all, however, he could discover no other reason, in the course of the right hon. gentleman's long speech, for keeping up the high price of corn, than that the people of Rome had, by being clamorous for low prices, thrown themselves into the hands of demagogues, and had eventually, lost their liberty. This was certainly a novel argument at the present day, but it was not one which was likely to be attended with much weight. It had been said, however, that some regulations were necessary. He would ask why? By an extraordinary concurrence a monopoly had been given to the home growers, in consequence of importations not taking place, but now that importations did take place; it was proposed to make the monopoly prices-permanent. This was a species of legislation which, upon cool observation, he apprehended few would be inclined to support. The terror which had been attempted to be excited respecting the importations from France, was of the most groundless description. The fact was, that, comparatively speaking, the importations from that country had been little or nothing. But even admitting the full force of this argument, he would ask in what manner were these importations to be paid for?—In money? No; in manufactures—in an exchange of equivalents according to the natural course of such transactions. Gentlemen could not be so ignorant as not to know that this country could not be an importing, without also being an exporting country—we could not be an exporting country without an accumulation of wealth; and the wealth so obtained he considered would turn out in effect to be the best security which the landholder could enjoy.

With respect to taxes, upon which so much had been said, he contended that the manufacturer had been infinitely more oppressed in this way than the agriculturist. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken off the income tax, it was true; but he had imposed new taxes upon the manufacturers—measures which were hailed by the House with general applause. This, however, was not sufficient; for at the very moment these oppressive steps were taking, a more grievous and destructive burthen was contemplated, by proposing a permanent high price of grain. The difficulties, with which the manufacturers had to struggle, were sufficiently great without this new imposition; and if, as had been said, this class of society constituted one half of the population off the country, he would ask, why their interests should not be protected with as much anxiety as those of the agriculturists? For his own part, he was of opinion, that upon the manufactures of the country depended its prosperity; and, therefore, he did not hesitate to say, that the adoption of any measure calculated to diminish those manufactures, would, in the end, prove subversive of the welfare and independence of Great Britain. Only two days back, one of the most experienced cotton spinners in this country called upon him, and stated, that he had but just returned from France, where he had made it a point to visit all the cotton manufactories in that country; and the result of these examinations was, that on looking at the machinery, he found it, upon the average, better than the machinery of this country; for as the establishments in France were of late formation, all the important mechanical improvements which had taken place in England were introduced. Under such circumstances he would ask, would it be wise for this country to give encouragement to France, for such would be the effect, by making a permanent rise in the price of grain, and thereby enhancing the price of labour? And that, too, at a moment when the taxes, instead of being reduced, were increased? Such conduct would, in his humble judgment, be the consummation of folly. How, he would ask, had the richest countries of every age risen in the scale of prosperity? By commerce. Commerce was the rock upon which the wealth and independence of Great Britain had been built; and what would be the consequence if that commerce were destroyed? How had our navy been cherished but by commerce? and if commerce were brought to a conclusion, what would be the fate of that navy? Such vague and short-sighted calculations as had that night been submitted, he was astonished to have heard in an English House of Commons. It had been said, that if we were dependent entirely upon foreigners for our corn, the whole navy of England would not be sufficient to import it. Was not this, then, a sufficient protection to the farmer? He would take the liberty of reading a short passage from a book which was little known to the members of that House, but which he considered invaluable upon this part of the subject—He meant "Mr. Torrens' Essay on External Corn Laws." The hon. gentleman then read the passage to which he alluded, in which the author, in effect, said, that Providence had, from the bulk of wheat, legislated sufficiently to protect the domestic grower. The hon. gentleman next proceeded to advert to the duties imposed upon the importation of cotton into this country, namely, three-pence per pound on that imported in foreign vessels, and one penny per pound on that imported in British vessels; while the policy of France had induced her to permit importations free of all duties whatever. This he considered a new proof of the folly of British legislation, which at once rendered France a depôt for those articles which had hitherto been exclusively confined to England.

He would now show the effect of agricultural pursuits upon the population of the country, and the effects which had been produced by commerce. He would take first the county of Rutland, calculating each house, as containing five persons. This was an agricultural county; and from the returns which he had in his possession, it was clear, that during the last century the population had declined. In the year 1690, the population was 18,750 souls; but from the last returns, the population was but 16,380. Then, again, in the county of Norfolk, to which an hon. member (Mr. Coke) had proved himself so great a benefactor, and by whose praise-worthy exertions so much had been attained, in 1690 the population, was 282,895, while in the last year it was but 291,182, making an increase of only 8,287 souls. He would next go to the manufacturing counties, and would take that of the county of York, by way of example. In 1690 the estimate of the population of the whole county was 605,260, and it was now 978,559, making an increase of 373,000. This was taking the whole of the three Ridings; but of those the West Riding alone produced 653,002 inhabitants; so that the increase of one Riding alone exceeded the former inhabitants of the whole county; and that Riding was the one in which the manufactures were principally carried on. Hence it was manifest, that manufactures were more favorable to population than agriculture, and that upon a comparison of both, the progressive increase of population in agricultural counties had been small. He thought it would be best to agree to some gradually diminishing duty, which by being high now, would protect the farmer; and hereafter, by its decrease, would reduce things by degrees to their natural course. Free trade, he thought, afforded the best prospect for the general interests of the country, and with this feeling he should oppose any measure which had for its object the adoption of a different principle.

entirely agreed with the general propositions that had been laid down on both sides,—that the interests of commerce and manufactures were so closely connected with those of agriculture, that the one could not be depressed without injuring the other, and that the enemies of either were substantially the enemies of both. He conceived, however, that the circumstances in which the country had been so long placed, had brought on such a state of things, that it was impossible now to avoid doing something to "encourage the agriculture of the country. He had but few gentlemen to contend with radically upon that principle. It seemed to be universally confessed, that it was essentially necessary to do something. The hon. gentleman who spoke last, as well as another hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring), were both agreed that something ought to be done for the protection of the farmer; but what they proposed for his protection was something that every year was to be less of a protection, and was finally to vanish away altogether. The object of the present measure was certainly to give confidence to those who otherwise would not have it. As our legislation was in almost every thing else of a permanent nature, he could not see why, in this instance only, it should be of a temporary nature. As to the hook which had been so highly praised by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and of which he had read an extract, he had certainly not perused it; but if the remainder was like what had been read to the House, he really did not think it would have much effect in changing the opinion of any gentleman. Was it to be supposed that Providence had intended to regulate the trade in corn among nations, more than any other species of commerce? That argument would go the length of saying, that all things ought to be left in a state of nature, and that legislative interference went to overturn the regulations of Providence. It might appear very philosophical to recommend the freedom of trade in all circumstances; but this perfect freedom of trade could never be extended upon such a subject, to a country that was so much of an artificial country as this was, and when this unlimited freedom of unrestricted trade could not exist with respect to other things. If the people now employed in agriculture could be withdrawn from the country, and cooped up in towns, to follow manufactures, he believed that the change would be by no means desirable. We should have no longer that brave and hardy peasantry which was the boast of this country—

Genes patients operum studiisque asperirma belli.

Instead of having a peaceable, easy governed society, they would place the population of the country in a state that the peace of the community would depend upon their being constantly kept in employment. How seldom was any combination or ferment heard of in the country from the stoppage of agricultural labour? But how frequently and how recently had the peace of the country been disturbed from manufacturers being out of employment.

With regard to the interests of the manufacturers, the hon. member said that he had as much solicitude to promote that interest as any legislator should feel; but it should be recollected by those who were loudest upon that point, that our home trade was the best support of that interest, and this support could only be derived from the prosperity of our agriculture. This view, however, did not seem to have occurred to the mind of those who had raised a clamor on the part of the manufacturers. The petitioners of London, for instance, appeared to be unaware that the state of the distress which at present affected our agriculturists must, if allowed to continue, ultimately affect themselves in all their pursuits of trade and manufacture; for that distress must operate to diminish the demand from which those citizens derived their subsistence and profits. Supposing, also, that capital were to be withdrawn from agriculture, how was it likely to be employed, or where, if our manufacturers were discouraged? and the discouragement of the latter must, he conceived, be the result of the distress of the former. But, according to the assertion of the last speaker, our manufactures must be so depressed by the present measure that it could not compete with the manufactures of other nations. That hon. gentleman had not, however, shown how that depression was likely to arise from any regulation as to the price of corn. On the contrary the hon. member had cited an instance in which our manufactures were not at all likely to be touched by the price of corn. For the hon. gentleman had stated that the cotton manufacture had arrived at a state of great prosperity in France; that its machinery and the general skill of these manufacturers were most materially improved. If so, then, how was that manufacture to be affected by any measure of legislation in that House as to the price of corn? It was, on the contrary, clear, that whether that House raised the import price of corn or not, the cotton manufactures of France would still go on, secure against the competition of our manufacturers.

But as to the success of the cotton manufactures of France, it seemed extraordinary, if the hon. gentleman's assertion were correct, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought our cotton manufactures still able to bear the proposed additional tax upon the raw material. Certainly, if the assertion of the hon. gentleman were well founded, the proposition of this tax would appear absurd. But as to the state of our manufactures generally, it was quite preposterous to suppose, that a cessation of the monopoly which the circumstances of the war allowed us to enjoy, should not affect our manufacturers, without any reference to the price of corn. As to the recommendation of an hon. member (Mr. Baring), that the land-owners should reduce their rents, he submitted that an acquiescence in that recommendation would not produce the effect upon which the hon. member calculated, while it would be essentially unjust to the land-owners, and materially injurious to the general interest. For even if the land-owners were immediately to comply with the hon. member's wish, it did not follow that a declension in the price of the several articles of consumption would be the consequence; that the wages of labour would fall, or that the state of our currency would be more rapidly improved. The present state of prices then continuing the same, the land-owner, with a rental reduced, for instance, from three to two thousand pounds a year, would still have to pay the same sum that was at present demanded for every article of consumption, And how, he would ask, was this to be done? In fact, the land-owner must, in such an event, reduce his expense, and this reduction would, of course, operate to prejudice the manufacturer and mechanic. But, independently of this consideration, the interest upon the public debt, amounting to about forty millions, must still be paid; and were the rental of the land-owners reduced in the proportion advised by the hon. gentleman, those land-owners would scarcely be able, under such circumstances, to pay any thing else than their proportion of that interest. Then, as to day-labourers, if they were to be thrown out of employment, by the discouragement of agricul- ture, an additional burthen would be imposed upon the landed interest; from which burthen the manufacturers would be comparatively free.

He would not say that the better lands would not be still cultivated, but the lighter lands must, undoubtedly, be thrown out of cultivation, were the measure under consideration rejected; and no one could contemplate without alarm, the idea of having the country thrown back to the state in which it was sixty years ago, especially considering our increased population. In viewing the merits of this question he had always Ireland in his mind, as might be naturally supposed. It was clear that the agricultural produce of Great Britain would not be able to keep pace with our increased population; and where, then, should we look to supply the deficiency? Surely, not to France or to Belgium, or any other foreign state, while we could be supplied from Ireland, which formed a part of our own empire, and which being always secure to us, was capable of furnishing us with an abundant supply. As to France, he confessed that he did not feel the jealousy which some gentlemen professed respecting a supply from that quarter; for should we really stand in need of corn, the object would naturally he to obtain it on the cheapest terms; and if France could afford to supply us on those terms, he should rather have it from thence than elsewhere—certainly rather than from North America; But, referring to those who would have a free import of provisions, he should ask, why not also allow the free import of sheep and oxen, for they were articles of provision as well as corn? and if the principles of those gentlemen were good for any thing, it should comprehend the whole. In examining, however, the principles of free trade, which those gentlemen maintained in opposition to all the experience and established policy of this country, which ever consulted the means of rendering us independent of foreign supply, with a view to our national safety and internal quiet, his mind naturally turned to the fate of Norway. What, he would ask those gentlemen, facilitated the subjection of that country? What rendered it impossible for that people to withstand foreign attack, but its dependence on other nations for a supply of corn? Here an important lesson was to be learned, which, notwithstanding the superior importance of this great nation and its various means of supply, which must ever save it from a similar condition, was entitled to due consideration. Again he would recommend those gentlemen to consider that such a measure as that before the House, which by no means rendered certain any rise in the price of bread, was calculated to guard the country against that alarm, which, in times of scarcity, was so apt to produce an artificial enhancement of this necessary article. But still more those gentlemen should bear in mind, that in consistency with their principle of free trade they should not only resist the proposition for raising the import price of corn to 80s.—they should go still farther, and move the repeal of the existing law for fixing the import price at 63s. Thus they would consult their wish for a complete freedom of trade in the import and export of corn.—Another point to which he thought it material to call the attention of the House, and which had not been sufficiently touched upon, was with respect to the fate of those employed in agricultural labour. If agriculture was refused the necessary encouragement, a great proportion of those labourers must be thrown out of employment; and what, he would ask, was to become of them? They could not look for employment in manufactures, because they were destitute of the necessary skill, and also because the manufactories were, he apprehended, already crowded with hands. These labourers, then, would have no resource but in the poor-rates, by which, according to what he conceived the impolicy of England, such persons must be maintained whether they worked or not. Thus, those labourers would have to be supported at the expense of the community without yielding any degree of productive labour in return; that expense, too, bearing principally upon the landed interest. This incumbrance, combined with all the circumstances which, he had already stated, held out a prospect which must make a due impression upon that House and upon the country at large, all classes of which were, in fact, equally interested in the success of this measure.

, in explanation, stated, that in having said, the machinery employed in the cotton manufactories of France was better on the average than that in England, he did not mean that that machinery was better than the best to be found in this country. The hon. member repeated his conviction, that this measure would serve to raise the price of corn above its natural level, and thus to lay a tax upon the manufacturers and all other classes of the community, for the delusive idea of a benefit to the agricultural interest.

said, that no gentleman was more disposed to give encouragement to agriculture than himself, in order to make the people of this country independent of foreigners for a supply of corn. He, however, could not go the length of supporting the resolutions. The right hon. gentleman had said (as others had done), that this measure would have the effect of making corn cheap. Before this could be made out, it must be shown that 80s. was not more than 63s. The consequence of raising the protecting price, would be to increase the regular price of grain. Though they had been repeatedly told, the English agriculturist could not compete with the French corn-grower, on account of the weight of taxation sustained by the former, the gentlemen who had stated this, had not thought fit to tell them the amount of the taxes paid by the latter. They ought to know that one tax paid by the French farmer, the contribution fancier, was, in amount, more than all those which fell on the English agriculturist. The additional centime lately laid on, made it amount to one-fourth of the produce of the land, so that, in point of fact, the French farmer was in the same situation as if a land-tax of 20s. in the pound had been laid upon him; and yet they were told the English farmer could not compete with them. In this statement he was supported by Mr. Malthus, who had taken the produce of this tax at a third of that of the land. In last July the French minister of finance, in a statement which he put forth, in which he very feelingly corn-planed that 42 departments had been taken from France, and that but 36 remained to her, had stated that the produce of the contribution fancier on these departments amounted to no less than 275,000,000 of livers, about thirteen or fourteen million sterling. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), in noticing what had fallen from him on a former evening, had said, in reference to what he had advanced, that he should like to know the profits of his commercial concerns in the year. He was surprised to hear this from that quarter, as that hon. gentleman had so recently declaimed in that House against the power given to the property-tax commissioners as inquisitorial and outrageous. He had given it many hard names; but it seemed, from the speech to which he had referred, that he was of opinion that power, which ought never to have been given to the commissioners of the property-tax, might with safety be lodged elsewhere. For his own part, he believed that if the profits of the hon. gentleman's brewery in the course of the last year could be disclosed without impropriety, the public would be satisfied, that however anxious the hon. member had been for their interests, he had not been quite negligent of his own. He wished to remind the House, that not many years had elapsed since the French revolutionary policy was formed upon principles similar to some of those by which the present measure was defended, and that the effects of that policy had been to drive manufacturers out of France, and in a short time so to injure the landed proprietors themselves as to reduce the value of land from 25 and 30 to 5 and 6 years purchase. He admitted that some protection was necessary, and that a certain boundary was to be established; but he was decidedly of opinion that the proposed measure overleaped that boundary.

spoke in favour of the Resolutions. The only alternative they had to consider was, whether the country should depend upon foreign supply, or raise its own; and he had no hesitation in preferring the latter. He declared his belief to be, not that the effect of the measure before the House would be to render corn cheaper than at present, but to prevent its ever becoming inordinately clear. If any unpopularity attended an opinion of this kind, he was ready to meet it.

rose, in consequence of the observations of which he had been the subject. For himself, and the gentlemen who took the same view of the question which he did, he disclaimed any anxiety for popularity, which must be short-lived, if the measures they recommended should prove injurious to the country. In most instances he was satisfied the interests of the nation were best confided to its great landholders, but when they came to discuss a question so immediately affecting their own personal interests as the state of rents, and the value of the produce of land, it was fit they should be cautioned against taking a narrower view, from the bias they must necessarily have, than they were accustomed to take, of the tendency and effect of measures submitted to their consideration. During the whole of this long discussion, he had heard nothing in favour the Report now at the bar; he had heard nothing to satisfy him that 80 shillings ought to be the protecting price. He had heard the agriculturists cried up, and the manufacturers spoken of as the scum of the earth—[murmurs, and loud cries of "No, no,"]—but nothing had been said to justify the proposed importation price, and he found it opposed in every part of the report of the committee up stairs. He had offered his sentiments before; but there was something so absurd in going in direct opposition to the report of that committee without one word being said, which he could consider as a justification of their taking such a course, that though he would not again go through the evidence, he could not but call the attention of the House to that which had been the recommendation of the committee. The witnesses were agreed, that some protection to the agricultural interests was necessary. It was generally asserted by them that with the present charges, present rents, and present taxes, 80s. would he necessary. Four or five of the persons examined had named a lower price. Mr. Maxwell had said 75s. Would be a high limiting price—if that could be got, the farmer could have no cause for complaint. Mr. Crabtree had named 75s., Mr. Mann 72s., Mr. Giles 76s., or from that to 80s. Mr. Webb, when asked if the farmer could afford to grow corn at the present prices if his expenses continued the same? answered; "You ask me that which it would be absurd to assume—if bread falls in price, other things must fall with it."—He had heard nothing to reconcile him to the protecting price of 80s.; and unless he did hear some satisfactory argument for it, he should in the first instance vote against the report being brought up from the bar. He controverter he statement which they had heard, that the farmer's rent was of no importance to the price of grain; and proceeded to show that the effect of the measure now submitted to them, if it received the sanction of parliament, must be to bring a quantity of bad land into cultivation, which could not be made fit to raise corn upon, but at a great expense! In replying to the argument used with respect to rents, he stated that it was true when rents were low, there was no stimulus for farmers to exert themselves in the growth of corn, and that high rents rendered exertion necessary. But the stimulus was found in the low price of their produce, which compelled them to increase its quantity. If it were true, as had been asserted by an hon. gentleman, that our manufacturers were beaten out of the market by foreign competition when wheat was at 65s. per quarter, what would they be when it should come to 80s.? It was by the manufacturers, directly and indirectly, that a very considerable part of the taxation was paid; to touch the manufacturing interest, therefore, was to deteriorate the finances of the country. There was another and a powerful argument which ought to operate against the adoption of the proposed measure. If the House preferred an artificial to an inartificial state of currency, they would agree to the Resolutions; but they might be assured that if they kept up the price of corn, they would never return to a money circulation. He still maintained, notwithstanding what had been said by an hon. gentleman on that subject, that the high price of bread was in fact a bounty given to the grower by the consumer. The hon. member concluded, amidst considerable marks of impatience for the question on the part of the House.

said, that it was not alone because he felt most earnestly on this subject that he desired to offer himself to the House, but because, exhausted as the House might be, and exhausted as the subject too was, he yet could not suffer the language of the hon. gentleman to pass without animadversion. The hon. gentleman had said, that he questioned not the motives of others, yet the whole of his speech was made up of the most unmanly insinuations. He would not condescend to repel them. The hon. gentleman had stated, his argument as applicable to our manufactures, and he had instanced that of cotton; and the whole question of their competition in foreign markets with the manufacture of France, for instance, was a question of price. He should have told the House that it was a question of prohibition. Your cotton manufactures were prohibited in France without reference to any thing but their being British. They were prohibited in France, in Austria, and in other states. The hon. gentleman will assert, perhaps, that they may still find their way into foreign markets where they will have to meet the manufacture of France; but he could inform the hon. gentleman that they did not only find their way into these markets, but at this very moment large quantities had been carried into France; certainly not under circumstances which could add either to the facility or the cheapness of their entry there—since the prohibition remained in force, and they could not expect it to be abandoned by the French. He doubted not that the hon. gentleman was not unapprised of the circumstances he alluded to. He would assure him of the fact; and it was sufficient to prove, that it was not a position of mere price. The hon. gentleman had smiled at his mention of Spain. But the House would recollect, that in that was included the supply of the South American provinces, which were yet dependent on the Spanish monarchy. The monopoly of cotton was secured to the Philippine Company; and though some relaxation in other parts of the commercial policy of Spain had been given, or hoped for, still in this article of cotton the system was rigidly acted on, and avowed to be for the purpose of protecting the cotton manufactures of Catalonia. But the first fact he alluded to would be sufficient. He could not have apprehended the rivalry of these states. He too, as well as an hon. gentleman who had preceded him, confided in the skill, in the industry, in the capital above all, employed in British manufactures—in the internal advantages of our country, our cheapness of fuel, the advantages of our inland navigation, and more than these, in the spirit of enterprises which had created for us these markets, and which he trusted would be beneficially employed. Still the hon. gentleman says, that if we perpetuate the artificial system of the country, there is an end to our hope of a returning circulation in specie. Why Sir, said the right hon. gentleman, the direct contrary as far as the effect of these resolutions, will be the result which we have a right to look for. When did our foreign exchanges become most adverse? When we were compelled to send out our gold as an equivalent for the supply of foreign sustenance. Much of it was merely owing to that; all of it in the year 1801 might be ascribed to that cause; and it is not a little remarkable, that it has begun to droop as the foreign corn has begun to come in the last tour or eight months, and as you have ceased to look to these countries for your support. But the hon. gentleman continues to assert, that we have fixed a price which can never be below 80s. He must remind him, that the question of 80s. was not that now before the House; the question was, whether it was right that any thing should be done; whether the Report should be brought up? It was now a general question; and when we arrived at the particular resolution, it would be the right time to discuss the particular provision of price. But did the hon. gentleman mean to say, that it had not been already well argued on that ground? Why, Sir, the debate on a whole preceding night was on nothing else. The House had patiently heard the hon. gentleman and himself more than once to that very point. If he had been to be convinced, the speech of the member for Essex would have convinced him. The hon. gentleman chose to insinuate, nay it was no insinuation, for he had directly charged us with imposing a monopoly price on corn, with fixing a rate which never could be less than the protecting price; and this, too, says the hon. gentleman, imposed on the poor for the benefit of the landholder. In reply, we may remind him also, that in Ireland, now an exporting country, a country of which the population, although agricultural, has increased in an unexampled degree—in Ireland, which thirty years ago received her food from you, when the protecting price was about 38s. the barrel, a price correspondent with that of 63s. per quarter, the average price has been for the last six weeks 26s., that is, at the rate of 20s. and more below 63s. per quarter, your protecting price. And, as if to refute the hon gentleman even when he allowed it, the price since the ports have been entirely shut, although he will admit beyond our protecting price, the fall has already been 3 or 4s. a quarter. I shall abstain, Sir, from arguing this as an Irish question. It is unnecessary so to argue it; it would be ungrateful to do so. Not a man has spoken who has not recognized our right to protection; and I hail the liberality which has, I may say, pervaded the House of Commons since these discussions have begun, as holding out a prospect of much more than these regulations can give, of a recognized community of rights, as a pledge of the sincere wish of the representatives of Great Britain and Ireland, for the concurrent prosperity of both. I will not recur, said the right hon. gentleman, to the periods of, national jealousy, I look forward to the days of prosperity which are yet to come. I regard this measure as one which gives the best pledge of it, as one which shows that you forget not that country which has contributed to the support of the empire, to its defense, and to its glory. I will not delay the House from coming to the decision which the hon. gentleman deprecates—nor have I myself ever given a vote with a more entire conviction that I give it in the right.

said, he did not expect to have heard it stated, as it was by an hon. member, that no arguments had been used in favour of bringing up the report. The most powerful of all arguments was the majority of 209 to 65 in favour of the resolutions. He denied that he was partial or interested on this question; for he had not a rood of land in Britain, and only a very moderate property in Ireland. The opponents of the measure did not seem to understand the interests of the country. Gentlemen should read their books before they came there to speak; that used to be the custom in former days, but he was sorry to see that the manners of modern times differed very much from those of their predecessors. He could not read books now, but he could read letters; and that very day he had received seven from Ireland, declaring that such was their distressing situation, that unless speedily relieved they must stop the plough and the harrow. For his own part, he sincerely hoped the proposed measure would be adopted; and that neither Great Britain nor Ireland would prefer foreign aid to domestic supply. Before he sat down he must complain of a misrepresentation in some of the prints, in consequence of a misstatement by an hon. gentleman, resulting from a misapprehension. The hon. gentleman had chosen to make him guilty of a gross bull. [The hon. baronet pronounced the last word with an emphasis which excited universal laughter in the House.] The hon. gentleman had converted the bullocks which he (sir F. Flood) had talked of as harnessed to a plough in Ireland into bulls, and the misapprehension and misstatement and misrepresentation had been copied into many of the country papers.

professed his regret at having turned the hon. baronet's bullocks into bulls; but as he had seen a bull drawing the plough in England, he supposed that there might sometimes be six hulls so employed on the heavy lands in Ireland. With respect to his having advised an hon. member (Mr. Marryatt) to expose the state of his commercial profits, he had only done it in order to show him the absurdity of his own argument. He had merely told him, that if he called on the land-owners to give an account of their rents, they had an equal right to ask from him an account of his profits. As to what had been said, that he would be found to have pretty well taken care of his own interests, he believed, from what he knew of the hon. gentleman, that this conduct on his part would only give the hon. gentleman a higher opinion of his sense. The grave soreness, or sore gravity, with which the hon. gentleman had commented on his expression, showed, however, that in that part of his speech, at least, he had not failed.

followed in favour of the resolutions, on the principle of general utility; but declared, that for the purpose of giving as general satisfaction as possible, he would have no objection to lower the average to 76s.

asked, whether the House, from their experience of former measures, could say that the importation price had no effect on the price in the market? He should be ashamed of his own judgment if he could allow himself to be impressed with such an idea. Without ascertaining the proper mode of taking the averages, they were proceeding to fix the limit at which importation ought to be allowed.

said, if the whole lands of England were let without rent, it would make no alteration whatever in the price of corn. The price was regulated by the demand and not by the rent. He supported the resolutions, and hoped that 80s. would be found the maximum instead of the minimum of the price of corn.

said, he had objected to a measure similar to the present last year. From the necessity of the case, he, however, now felt no disinclination to grant relief to agriculture. He was deeply connected both with the agricultural and the manufacturing interest, and stated that he was not aware that any change had taken place in the sentiments of the manufacturers on the merits of the question. The nature of these was already sufficiently known, and he was sorry to differ from them. His object was, not to support the system of high rents, but, to use a technical phrase, to leave things to look downward. His present vote was directed by the firm persuasion that in taking the line he was now following, he would best serve the interests of the community at large.

declared his intention to divide the House on the question of bringing up the Report. If supported by a majority, he should then move that the Resolutions be recommitted, for the purpose of inserting 72 instead of 80s.

supported the Resolutions, and thought, that an alteration of the law, as it now stood, would be for the general good of the community.

wished to remind the hon. general, that in voting for the bringing up the Report, he did not pledge himself to the latter sum.

The question was then loudly called for, and the House divided:

On the question, That the Report be now read,

complained that the measure should be pushed a step farther at that late hour of the night.

stated, that not merely the principle, but the precise sum of which the protection price should be fixed, had been already amply discussed; he, therefore, saw no undue precipitation in proceeding.

said it would be hard to go into a fresh discussion at that time of eight, when it was impossible to expect attention on the part of the House. It would be his business to wade through three very long Reports, and he was afraid the House would not have patience to listen to him. [Cries of Go on.] The matter did not press in such a degree as to induce them to go on at that late hour. The ports were now closed. No gentlemen, surely, would wish to hurry the measure through with such precipitation as to give a foundation for any class of society to say that they had been taken by surprise.

no sooner got up, than loud and repeated cries of 'Spoke, spoke! Chair, chair!' burst from every part of the House. After a few words from the Speaker, the hon. gentleman said, that it was only necessary to observe the impatience of the House, to be convinced of the propriety of adjourning the question. When he saw gentlemen coming down after midnight, resolved to attend to nothing, and with nothing in their mind but their vote, he felt himself bound to move the question of adjournment.

rose to second his hon. friend's motion, both on account of the lateness of the hour, and because he perceived symptoms of impatience in the advocates for the measure, which could not fail to prevent any thing like a patient hearing.

trusted that the House would consent to an adjournment. Several returns of the average price of the quarter loaf moved for some nights since by an hon. alderman, and other papers ordered that very evening, had not yet been produced and without being in possession of the information which they contained, it would be unfair to proceed any further with the Resolutions.

was astonished that it should be supposed it was intended to press this measure through the House with undue precipitation. It was now ten days since the Resolutions had been proposed. For the greatest part of that time they had been attentively debated, and now the question merely was, whether the Report should be taken into consideration. The House had sat late some nights since on the Resolution which fixed the protecting price at 80s. On its opponents stating that new matter had been introduced, the debate had been adjourned till Thursday, and, after a discussion of twelve hours, that resolution had been confirmed by a division. Yet the hon. gentleman now wished to take a third, and a long view of the subject. He was anxious to hear what new matter he had to produce, and therefore did not wish that view should be postponed. He could not suppose there was any intention to create a clamor out of doors, in order to exercise an undue influence in the House. He trusted the character of parliament would not be compromised by tricks and shuffling, and hoped that the hon. gentleman, on considering the subject more maturely, would consent to withdraw his motion.

complained of having been charged with a wish to create a clamor out of doors. Insinuations to that effect had been thrown out, which he regretted had not been withheld.

did not know whether he was correct in calling to order—what he had stated was, that he hoped the House would consider that out of doors there were many opportunities, and many persons ready to take advantage of them, to create an undue influence.

thought that this explanation only confirmed the charge of which he complained. It was not a direct one, but an insinuation that improper motives had existed.

The call for the question then became so loud, that strangers were ordered to withdraw, and a division took place.

The question "That the Report be now read," was then put; upon which the House again divided:

The question of adjournment being again moved by Mr. Baring, and seconded by Mr. Horner, was agreed to without a division, at two o'clock in the morning.

The following gentlemen voted in the minority on the above divisions: