presented a Petition from Coventry against any alteration of the Corn Laws at the present moment, as its tendency would be so materially to affect the commercial and trading classes of the community. It was signed by upwards of 9,000 persons. He trusted that, in moving for leave to bring up this petition, he should be indulged in a few words, as they were due to his constituents. They had borne all the burthens of the war, at least an ample share of those burthens, with the most exemplary patience. They saw the difficulties with which the war fixed the country; but they justly looked forward to the period when peace should arrive, as the time when the nation would be relieved from many of its burthens. It seemed, however, that they, in common with the country at large, were to be dis- appointed. Their opinions on this measure still were what they last year expressed them to be; they remained unaltered; or if they had altered, they were more decidedly against the principle of the Bill. Such he believed to be the case with the whole country, and if the opinion of the people had altered since last year, it had only altered in extent against the measure; for he felt convinced that where the House received 50 petitions last year against the proposed alterations, they would this year receive 500, should the Bill be persevered in. The petitioners had expressed the fear that its promoters were attempting to hurry the measure through the House, without giving fair time to the country to express an opinion on it: and, from what he had seen, he regretted to say that he thought they had properly expressed such fear. He trusted the House would see the propriety of consulting their own dignity and the feelings of the people, by proceeding with that deliberation which would allow the country time to express their opinion; for if they did not, it would give the people but too much, reason to say that the House had decided their cause without hearing their evidence.

seconded the motion, observing, that nearly the whole population of Coventry had signed this petition, which besought the House not to make any alteration in the corn laws at present. He thought it was the duty of the House to pay no common attention to such petitions; and as the extraordinary rise which had recently taken place in the price of grain had already created a serious alarm throughout the country respecting the tendency of this measure, he hoped that time would be allowed to enable the House to learn what the opinion of the nation really was on the subject. To precipitate the measure could do no good, and might be productive of much harm. As to the course which he should pursue, he should most undoubtedly support the prayer of the petitioners in every stage of the Bill.

presented a Petition from the parish of Christ-Church, Surrey, praying that no alteration might be made in the corn laws. The population of the parish amounted to 11,000 including women and children, and the petition was signed by upwards of 3,000 persons. Although the petitioners did not complain of having borne all the burthens of the war, like those of Coventry, they justly urged the extensive burthens which they had borne, and with unexampled patience, in common with the rest of the country, as reasons against a measure, the tendency of which they could not but deem calculated to keep up the price of corn. The petition was couched in strong language; but believing that it contained only the truth, he should feel himself bound to support its prayer.

The Petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

deprecated the haste with which such an important measure was attempted to be hurried through its stages. He said he never would vote in support of any Bill, against which the wishes of the people had been so strongly, so generally, and so unequivocally expressed as they had been against the present. He should, therefore, move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the motion. He was inclined to think, that the present distress of the farmers chiefly arose from the deficient crop of last year, owing to the prevalence of blight. At the period of last harvest, however, there was a large surplus of the abundant crop of 1813, so that it was impossible for the price to rise in proportion to the failure which then took place. If the next crop should happen to be a good one, he was satisfied that no resolutions or bills which the House might pass would keep up the price of corn. It had been stated by an hon. gentleman, (the member for Colchester,) that England was capable of growing wheat enough for her own consumption. He had once been inclined to this opinion; but on looking at the returns on the table of the immense imports of grain during the last 13 yews, he was compelled to infer that at present the country was not capable of growing enough. Perhaps the hon. gentleman meant that it might be capable at some future period: but surely it could not be forgotten, that our population would always keep pace with the means of subsistence; if the latter increased by means of additional tillage, our population would increase in exact proportion. It appeared from the recently presented returns, that in the last 10 years our population had increased amidst all the waste of war, by 1,700,000 or 1,800,000 souls, and there was no reason why it should not go on. On every ground, he was anxious to resist the precipitation with which it was endeavoured to pass the Bill through the House. As it affected the whole population of the country, they were entitled to be heard on the subject. He knew that his constituents, at Nottingham, were preparing petitions; and would it not be matter of regret, if they were prevented from being heard by means of indecent precipitation? There was one part of the Bill on which the information of the House was quite insufficient,—that of taking the averages. The right hon. gentleman who proposed the resolutions acknowledged the present mode to be faulty and defective, though he added, that in his opinion, it was not likely to be improved by any other course. But the House should see their way distinctly and fully on this important point, before they proceeded to legislate upon it. He had read the whole of the evidence contained in the Corn Report of last session, but it by no means followed from that evidence, that the import price should be fixed so high as 80s. It should be recollected that the witnesses fixed that rate as a fair remuneration for the farmer, from a view of the then prices of labour and rate of taxation. Now, the price of labour had already fallen in some parts, and would probably fall still more. Supposing, then, that on a particular farm 10l. a week was paid for labour, would not a fall of 25 per cent. on wages produce a considerable effect? It could not be doubted that from the reduction of the army and navy, there would be a great addition to the number of disposable labourers in all parts of the country; and he knew from the experience of the manufacturers in the town he represented, that many of the men who had served in the navy were ardently desirous of returning to labour. If, then, the price of labour must fall, he had no doubt that the same witnesses, if reexamined, would say that 75s. was a fair remunerating price for the farmer. The House, therefore, was now legislating on evidence which did not apply to the present circumstances. He was persuaded that if the Bill passed into a law, it would have the effect of exciting a sentiment throughout the whole kingdom, that the House had attended to their own interests, not to those of the people at large. Without, however, himself participating in the opinion that gentlemen were actuated by personal motives, still he thought that every thing should be done to prevent such a mischievous impression, being convinced that the belief of the people would be such as he had stated, unless greater time were given for consideration. If the people were in error, the more time that was given for discussion, the better would be the chance that error would be corrected.

said, that while he highly respected the agricultural interest, and wished it to be properly supported, he could not give his assent to the proposed restricting price. The decision of this question depended on the consideration of a great variety of circumstances. In the first place, they had to examine it with reference to our foreign trade. Our manufactures were sent to every part of the world; but they never would be able to compete with those of foreign countries, unless labour were cheap, and that depended on the price of provisions, as compared with the rate at which they were sold on the continent of Europe. By their naval superiority, during the late war, they were possessed of a sort of monopoly; but that had ceased, of course, with the return of peace; and now they had to contend with much greater difficulties, with respect to the sale of their manufactures, than they had to encounter prior to the commencement of hostilities. In consequence of the peculiar state of the continent, many foreign countries had established manufactures of different kinds, either to provide employment for their poor, or for the convenience of possessing those articles which formerly they purchased from Great Britain. Our manufactures would, therefore, in this new state of things, have to struggle against difficulties greater than had ever before impeded them. This country, it was true, possessed many advantages in commerce and agriculture. It had an abundant capital, greater than any other kingdom could boast of. It was a nation skilled in manufactures. Indeed, it might be said, that they had a standing army of manufacturers, ready to support and extend the commerce of the country. They possessed a free constitution, which gave a degree of consequence to manufacturers, which they did not elsewhere enjoy. There were a variety of other advantages; all which combined, would, to a certain extent, but to a certain extent only, en- able England to combat against the disadvantages by which her commerce and manufactures were likely to be affected. Under these circumstances, they ought to take care not to support any measure which threatened to weaken the national strength, or to paralyse the national security. Now, a very great disadvantage to our manufacturing interest would be produced, if the price of labour were augmented, by raising the price of pro-,. visions. This was a relative question, which could not be settled by looking to the home prices; they must examine the prices abroad; because, in proportion to the price of provisions on the continent, the foreign states would or would not be enabled to compete with us in the different markets. On an average, looking to the price of grain in the north of Europe, in Flanders, France, &c. it might be rated at 40s. per quarter—grain being, from a variety of causes, the neglect of tillage, the march of large armies, &c. dearer in the present than it would probably be in future years. Now, should the price of grain on the continent gradually decrease, and the rate of manufacturing labour become lower in proportion, how could this country hope to meet the foreign manufacturer in his own market, if a restricting price of 80s. were imposed? In his opinion they could not proceed farther than 63s. or at farthest 66s.; if they went to 80s. it would be stretching the bow too much. If corn were sold under the limited price, it would be in consequence of our growing sufficient for our own consumption. And, should a very abundant season occur, there would be a considerable superflux—how was it to be disposed of? The middle-man would not take charge of so perishable a commodity. Recourse must then be had to exportation. But where were they likely to find a vent for this superfluous grain? It was not probable that any market would be found for it on the continent. The consequence would be, that the necessary re-action must produce an effect far more prejudicial to the farmer, than could flow from the present moderate price of corn. If they adopted the restricting price of 63s. they would only go back to the situation in which they stood in 1801, with the exception of the taxes. Laying the taxes for the present out of the question, he did not think there was any great hardship in recurring to the system of 1804. They were, at that period, a great, a happy, a flourishing nation; and they were enabled to feed with the produce of the country a very considerable portion of their own population. Since that time much land had been brought into a state of cultivation. But he did not fear, if the restricting price were confined to the sum he had mentioned, that poor lands, now producing corn, would be again consigned to grass. The price of labour, he had no doubt, would fall, taxes would be lessened, and the consequence would be, that those lands would continue to be cultivated. The taxes would probably be heavier than in 1804, but he did not think they would be so heavy as to produce an effect contrary to that which he had stated. In Ireland the agriculturist was enabled to grow his corn much cheaper, because the taxes were considerably less than in this country, and labour was also paid at a much lower rate. If the Irish farmer could grow his corn at 40s. per quarter, he conceived, that, with a protecting price of 63s. he would not be likely to abandon tillage. With respect to rents, he must observe, that they had risen to an unnatural height, in consequence of the circumstances of the war; and, if they were reduced to something like what they were in 1804, he conceived the landholders would have no just cause of complaint. He thought it fair to state, looking to the great rise of rents in that country, that they might be very considerably lowered, and yet those who possessed landed property suffer very little by the alteration. It should not be forgotten, that for the last half century our manufactures had thriven under the import system, and he, for one, would not rashly depart from it until the House had further experience as to the effects of peace. He contended, that prices would be less steady, if we depended entirely on our resources. When the crops were good, prices would be extremely low, and when bad they would rise enormously high. He concluded with observing, that low prices and high taxes were indeed a serious consideration to the landed interest; but high taxes, high prices, and a failing foreign commerce, would be much worse.

said, he could most truly assert, that not even the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, though representing a manufacturing county, could wish more sincerely than he did, that the manufactures of Great Britain should flou- rish. And, although Ireland, in agriculture, bore a paramount interest, yet, if he thought, that, by supporting this measure, he was advocating that which would injure the manufactures of England, he would not present himself to the House on this occasion. But, when gentlemen spoke of this large manufacturing population, they should not forget, that there was a very great proportion of individuals, connected with agriculture, who anxiously awaited the decision of parliament, in the hope that it would relieve them from the pressure by which they were at present afflicted. In saying this, he was influenced by no partial feeling. He looked equally to the interests of England as of Ireland. The House should not forget, in considering this measure, that there was a large body of the inhabitants of the latter country, wholly dependent on agriculture for their daily employment. Those individuals had not, as in this country, if not supplied by labour with the means of subsistence, an opportunity of seeking relief from the poor-rates. They could only look to that scanty pittance, if, indeed, any such existed, which they had saved out of the labour of former years. This was the case in Ireland. And he could assure the House, from a number of communications he had received from the magistrates of that country, that distress was universally felt there at present. Cases of theft, the offenders men who had heretofore borne the best characters, were now frequently investigated in that country. In consequence of the alarming extent of these depredations, the magistrates had instituted an inquiry into the state of the lower orders in certain districts of the south of Ireland, and had found that many of the labouring poor had not been able to procure a single day's work from the middle of November till the end of January last.—They were ready, they were able, to work—but they could not procure employment. Was this a situation in which they would like to place any part of their population? He would make his appeal on this subject, and make it boldly, to the manufacturers themselves. He would ask them, did they wish to see any part of the labouring population of the United Kingdom placed in this heart-breaking situation? He was sure he could anticipate their answer. He was sure they would exclaim, with one voice, "Let those people have ample relief." Then, in what shape was this relief to come? It was by giving Ireland the benefit of her agricultural improvement. In consequence of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, he, an humble individual, who claimed no merit for the act, introduced a measure, which he conceived, by opening the intercourse between the two countries, would effectually serve both. That measure had exceeded his most sanguine hopes. Yet, at the time that it was brought forward, it was, like the present measure, misrepresented and abused. It was reprobated in Ireland. The people there imagined that its effect would be to deprive them of sustenance. But now the alarm had gone by, and they recognised in it a powerful engine of wealth and prosperity. That country was every day becoming more and more productive. It possessed capacities of improvement, beyond what any person unacquainted with it could imagine. And, by encouraging the progress of improvement, agriculture was not only extended, but civilization and domestic habits, which went hand in hand with industry, were introduced and established. Parliament had the power to throw that population back to idleness and insubordination, which they had called to industry and obedience to the laws. They could throw that population back to pasture, to the grazing of cattle. But could that pursuit afford them sufficient employment? It was utterly impossible. Would the House consent to throw back this immense population to a state dangerous to the community in general, since it must be destructive of their moral habits? Under all these circumstances, he hoped they would extend the relief to Ireland, which her situation required.

The right hon. baronet said, he would here make a short statement to the House, which, perhaps, had not come within the knowledge of gentlemen. It would show that the state of Ireland was such, as imperatively demanded relief; because it would prove the immense number of persons who were dependent on the agriculture of that country. By the returns of the population of Ireland, imperfect as they were, it appeared, that, in the four great manufacturing counties, those of Louth, Antrim, Armagh, and Down, together with the cities of Dublin and Cork, there were 708,600 families, and of these 488,800 were supported by agriculture. Much more than two-thirds of the whole population of those extensive districts, including Dublin, which contained 176,000 inhabitants, and the city of Cork, containing nearly 100,000, were dependent on agriculture. Of the remaining 219,000, 164,000 were supported by trade, manufactures, and handicrafts. It thus appeared that the individuals connected with agriculture, greatly outnumbered those embarked in manufactures. And the inference was evident, that any check given to agriculture would be vitally felt in every part of Ireland.

The right hon. baronet then proceeded to argue, with great force, that, from the peculiar situation of the sister country, England was bound in honour, in justice, in good faith, to encourage her agriculture. Many circumstances, he observed, had formerly occurred between the two countries which called for this protection. He would not enter into the detail of those circumstances—such a course would only inflame, and he wished to conciliate—but he would advert to the result. Ireland was diverted from the woollen trade, in which she formerly profitably engaged, to depend on the manufactures of England. Was it not, therefore, just that England should take from her that produce, which, in consequence of her giving up the woollen manufacture, had become her only support? The hon. gentleman who spoke last called on them to look at the foreign market, for their manufactures. He (sir John) did not think he was asking too much, when he called upon them to look at the home market. It was in evidence before the House, that, in proportion as the demand for the agricultural produce of Ireland increased in Great Britain, in precisely the same proportion the demand for British manufactures increased in Ireland. This observation was not confined to any one branch. Woollens, cottons, glass—almost all the household furniture, of Ireland—were supplied from this country. By the Act of Union, Ireland had placed out of her reach, by duties amounting to a prohibition, the admission of foreign manufactures into her ports. She had thus restricted herself to the use of the manufactures of Great Britain. Had she not, therefore, a just right to demand of this country, that her produce should be received in preference to that of foreign nations? They had frequently heard of the excesses committed in Ireland. No man deplored them more than he did; no man would hail, with greater pleasure, the restoration of tranquillity and happiness, in that country. The true way to attain this desirable end, was by giving to the people a permanent interest in the soil. Give to the peasant that which is necessary for him—employment, and at the same time you give him a taste for wholesome pursuits, a love for peace and industry! And, while you by this means give wealth to Ireland, you must essentially benefit Great Britain; since, with the love of peace and order, a desire to avail themselves of the comforts of British manufactures, will inevitably be excited. The interests of the two islands were, in every respect, closely interwoven together. And every measure which tended to convince the people of Ireland of this fact, assisted in forming a union, far stronger than any legal tie—a moral union, raised on the basis of mutual interest and mutual obligation.

It had been said, and the sentiment was very prevalent without doors, as well as within those walls, that this measure would not afford immediate relief to Ireland, and therefore did not suit the exigencies of that country. Here, as in every other case, the fact was every thing. The cessation of demand in Ireland had paralysed the whole country. It was not there, as it was in this country, where large capitals existed, customary to proceed to speculate extensively. They could not there afford to speculate, for a considerable time, in any commodity. The merchant, if he did not find the demand commensurate with his purchase, was obliged to forego the trade. He could not, like the merchant of England, proceed to an almost indefinite extent. The evil arising from cessation of demand must be felt more speedily in the sister country than here; and to this might, in some degree, be atributted, the greater degree of tranquillity observable in England than in Ireland. In the former, there was an almost constant series of employment for the labouring poor—in the latter, it was precarious and uncertain. The less the amount of capital, and the poorer the people, the sooner would the cessation of demand be felt. The cessation of the demand for agricultural produce, in Ireland, had occasioned a stagnation of business in every part of it, and had caused a total want of confidence amongst the people, with respect to those measures which were likely to do them service. All commer- cial intercourse was suspended between the two countries, pending the decision of the House on this measure. It was under circumstances of this description, that the hon. member had moved, not an alteration, not a modification of the measure, but the postponing the consideration of it for six months! It was in fact saying, that a measure which gentlemen declared ought to be fully and fairly discussed, should be put off for another year. The table certainly was not loaded with petitions in its favour; but if as much pains had been taken to procure petitions on the one side, as was manifested to procure them on the other, he had no doubt but a great number would have been presented to the House in support of the Bill. Did they not think, that, out of the 488,000 families; who, as he had before stated, were dependent on agriculture for their support, many would come forward to sign petitions in favour of the measure? He conceived, the House was bound to hear, calmly and dispassionately, every representation of the people; but he thought, on all occasions, particularly on questions of this nature, that parliament ought to be guided in its measures by its own solemn deliberations. Every gentleman knew, that if the opinion of the people had always been made the standard of their proceedings in cases of this kind, they would frequently, for the purpose of purchasing bread at a very cheap rate for the moment, have run the risk of buying it for whole years at a scarcity price. They would not have stopped, even if the price of present gratification had been nothing less than future famine. He felt so strong on this question, he was so thoroughly convinced that the interests of the two countries were the same—that he had no hesitation in declaring his firm opinion that the protection of the farmer was absolutely necessary to every class in the community. He had no objection to a moderate delay—he would give every fair opportunity for considering the measure—but he would deprecate any postponement, that went to destroy the hopes of those who depended on their daily labour for subsistence. It was of no use to tell the poor man that he should have a large loaf, when he had not employment by which he could earn the price of it. If this measure were not agreed to, if the labouring population were left without employment—it would be the means of driving them to mal-practices, and would probably reduce Ireland to a state, which every member of that House would lament, and which no manufacturer, no inhabitant of England, would like to see any part of the United Empire plunged in.

did not believe that any member who set a due value upon the real interests of the country, would vote for the mortal amendment to the immortal Bill now before the House. He said, that after the number of long and short speeches which had been repeated over and over again, he saw very well that delay alone was the object in view, for the purpose of obtaining opposition to the measure, by creating a clamour against it. It had been said by one hon. member who spoke against the resolutions, that they had few or no taxes in Ireland. Nothing could be further from the fact; they had a window tax, a tax on horses and other articles of luxury; in short, they had almost all the taxes that Englishmen had, and they had besides a tax which he wished was adopted in this country, viz, the hearth money, which would fill, as all taxes ought to do, on the lords and rich commoners of this more wealthy country than Ireland was. He denied also that labour was so much cheaper in Ireland than it was in England, as had been represented by the same hon. member. It was no such thing; so far from it, labour was as high there as here, in comparison to the wealth and opulence of the two countries. He said, he represented a county in which there were many agriculturists who had embarked their capitals in tillage, and Ireland had thereby derived the greatest advantage from their skill and industry; but now when corn had fallen so much in price, if they were not encouraged by parliament, they must either turn their lands again into pasture, or they would be ruined. England had also derived great benefits from the agriculture of Ireland, which, in one year, had furnished England with eleven million of quarters; and so late as 1812, had furnished three million. If you do not encourage Irish agriculture, you must obtain supplies from foreign countries, from countries that were lately your enemies, and are now only your provisional friends. He should be very sorry to distress the manufacturers of this country; but he did not believe such would be the consequence of adopting this measure. He thought the manufacturers and the agriculturists should go hand in hand; and if they did so, the manufacturers would find, that in giving encouragement to Ireland, they would be serving their best friends.

said, the amendment should have his cordial support. He expressed his concern to observe, that the hon. gentlemen who were in favour of the Bill seemed so very anxious to hurry it through the House, in the teeth of so many numerously signed petitions, which were pouring in every day, almost unanimously and decidedly against the measure. This anxiety and hurry, in his opinion, shewed that the supporters of the Bill were afraid to give time for the voice of the people to be made known by means of petitions, and wished thus to carry a measure which was not only altogether contrary to the voice of their constituents, but in the highest degree obnoxious to them.

said, that he had had many opportunities of witnessing the extreme distress of agricultural labourers. Since the last recess more complaints had been made to him of want of work, than he had ever heard since he had been in the commission of the peace. It had been asserted by those who were adverse to this measure, that farmers kept their horses, hounds, and in a manner elbowed the nobility and gentry out of the field. Such accounts might answer the purpose of creating a prejudice against this very useful body of men, in order to answer a particular purpose; but he wished the House to consider that since the ports were shut, and even since the opinion of the House was known by so many very large majorities in favour of the measure, the prices of corn had continued very low and dull; from all which he drew an inference, that if the price were fixed at 80s. that would be no reason for supposing that corn would ever rise to that price, except in consequence of very unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances.

said, that not having yet taken any share in the debates or votes upon this subject, in consequence of not being able in his own mind to come to any satisfactory determination, and having now arrived at something like a decision, after duly weighing both sides of the question, he wished to state it to the House. The question lay between two evils; and although in the abstract he was friendly to a free trade, yet in this case, as it would not depend upon ourselves alone, he was inclined to favour a measure, the object of which was to render us independent of foreign assistance. He could bear witness, from his own personal experience, to the severe distresses of the labourers in husbandry, to whom the cheapness of corn (so much wished for by those who argued on the other side) was a disadvantage, because that very circumstance threw them out of work: he was informed that in the Bedford Level half the population were receiving parochial relief. Although the adoption of this Bill might be partially disadvantageous, he was convinced it would be generally beneficial, and without it he thought that the farmer would be ruined and the labourer starved. Considering, however, how many conflicting interests were involved, he could have wished that it had been deemed expedient to resort to a temporary measure, since the establishment of a permanent system in matters on which the wisest men differed was inexpedient. It was not without pain that he had come to the conclusion he had stated; and even now he could scarcely say that he had absolutely decided what relief ought to be afforded, though he was convinced that some immediate assistance to the agricultural interest was required. Whether the restricting price should be 72, 76, or 80s. was a matter of less moment, although under all the circumstances he was in favour of the higher sum, as giving due encouragement to the farmer, without which he could not contend with rival and foreign markets.

expressed himself highly obliged by the manner in which the noble lord who had just sat down had described the distresses to which the poor of the county of York were exposed. He only wished that every one of that noble lord's constituents had heard the statements which he had made, and he was satisfied he would have endeared himself to their hearts. He could confirm every word which the noble lord had said, from personal observation. It was only a month ago, since he had had an opportunity of viewing the wretched situation to which the agricultural poor of Yorkshire were reduced. In a small village near Hull, where a number of labouring poor resided, he inquired what was the reason of their distress, now that the corn was at such reduced prices? "Why, Sir," said some of the poor poople, "it is very true that corn can be purchased cheaper than at any former period; but then this is of no importance to us, for we can get no work, and, consequently, have not the means of buy- ing it." When he asked the cause of this, they said, "The farmers have no money, and cannot pay us for our labour." He immediately offered to give some twenty of them employment, and a person present said, if he could employ forty more, they would be most anxious to obtain his patronage at any rate. Nothing could be more obvious than that the reduction of the price of corn had produced these events, and that reduction manifestly was attributable to the importation of foreign grain. He did not wish the farmers to have a very high price for their corn, but he wished them to have such a price as would protect them in their labours; and if he wished plenty to the poor, he certainly did not wish to see them fed with French corn, or clothed with foreign manufactures. He wished every thing to be English, and for this reason he would protect the agriculturist as well as the manufacturer. Hitherto the manufacturer had been protected in every possible way. There was a duty upon every thing which could in the slightest way interfere with his interest, and every facility given to the exportation of his commodity. But how was the farmer treated? He was prohibited from exporting his wool and his cattle; and even after his sheep were killed, he was not allowed to export their skins. The manufacturer of leather was protected in a monopoly of the skin, while the farmer was prevented from deriving the advantage which similar privileges would give him. Why should this be the case, and why should the interests of one class of society be sacrificed for the sake of promoting those of another? He was sure that if the questions were fairly stated to the manufacturers of Leeds and Sheffield, that they would agree in the sentiments of the noble lord, in considering the measure before the House a just one. If they thought otherwise now, he could say their opinions were not formed from their own observation, but had originated in misrepresentation. They did not understand the subject, and were, therefore, unable to see that which was for their own interests. The discussions which had taken place in that House, however, he was satisfied, had done a great deal of good, and had removed many of the prejudices which he knew to have existed. To export all we could, and to import as little as we could help, was a maxim which, any one would allow was applicable to the real interests of this country; and if it applied to one species of commodity, why should it not apply to another? If it applied to manufactures, why should it not apply to corn? The disadvantages arising from its not being applied to corn had been seriously felt, and he apprehended would ere long be very generally acknowledged. Already did the shopkeepers in market towns view with dismay the distresses of the farmer; in vain did they look for that custom to which they had heretofore been accustomed; the farmer passed their doors dejected and distressed, he was no longer able to purchase those little articles of luxury and manufacture which had given spirit to trade, and that friendly intercourse which had in former times subsisted, was broken up. Indeed, he had heard it as a fact, that several inns had actually been closed, in consequence of the absence of those persons who had been their certain customers, but who now transacted their business in the open streets, and then returned to their houses to the meagre fare of bread and cheese. These were facts which could not be disguised, and which he trusted would operate as a convincing reason with the House for passing the Bill before them. He would conclude what he had to say to the House, by quoting a passage of an address, which in 1802 was presented from prince Talley-rand to Buonaparté. In this address that prince, who was known to be a man of great talents, pointed out the beneficial consequences which would result to France from a peace with Great Britain. "Leave them in peace," said prince Talleyrand, "and their ministers will be distracted by popular clamour, which will always be exerted and encouraged by designing men."—"Leave them in peace," again said he, "and they will never think of striking out schemes for the increase of their population. Instead of manufacturing for their own benefit, they will manufacture for the use of others." "Leave them in peace," lastly said he, and it was unfortunate that his words had been se prophetic, "and their nobility and gentry will come to France, and in squandering their money and great riches among us, augment our national resources, while they enslave their own country." This was the address of a sensible man, who seemed to have taken a very close view of the English character; but he trusted the government of this country would not permit such observations to be verified by facts. He entreated the House to afford the same protection to the farmer which they did to the manufacturer, and thereby ensure the prosperity of both. By this means the population would be increased, the stability of the country secured, and the probability of enslavement by France rendered chimerical.

agreed with those who thought it was a great evil that our absentees should spend so much English money in foreign countries; but he could see no very great difference between spending it personally in France, and sending it over there, to purchase what our own country was capable of supplying. As to the proposition of substituting 72 shillings in the place of 80, it would be to do away the entire effect of the measure, and all the good that was expected from it. The difference between 72 shillings and 80 would amount on art acre, producing five quarters, to no less than forty shillings, or, in other words, to the whole rent. When the reduction of the price of agricultural labour was spoken of, he would ask, would it be right to take 25 per cent. off the price of their labour, and make their misery much greater than it now was? It was true that land, in a very high state of cultivation, such as Mr. Mant's farm was, and which was also tithe-free, might be sufficiently protected by the price of 72s. Land that produced 40 or 50 bushels of corn on the acre could afford to pay large rents, and the corn might be sold cheap. The average of the land of England, however, was not of that quality, and the expenses on a poorer soil were greater than those on land of high cultivation. He thought, that when it was considered how much higher the price of labour was to the manufacturers than to the agricultural labourers, he did not think that it would be too great a sacrifice to demand of them, that even if this measure should raise their expense in bread a farthing or a halfpenny a day, they should submit to it in order that the agricultural labourers might live.

could not avoid adverting to the expression of an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Thompson) "that no honest Yorkshireman, even though living in a manufacturing town, would wish to starve the farmers." He believed, however, that the people of Yorkshire, as well as other counties, without looking over the hon. gentleman's books, understood pretty well the connexion that there was between the farmers and the country bankers. He thought that this consideration lessened much of the weight of the arguments which the hon. gentleman had now brought forward. [Loud cries of No, no!] He considered that connexion to be a link of the question which they had been discussing last night, namely, the Bank Restriction Act. As to the proposed measure, he was not unfriendly to the principle of it, as he thought some protection was necessary to our agriculture; but he was unfriendly to the price which had been fixed by the committee as the protecting price. In opposing the Bill, he therefore only considered himself to be acting against 80s. as the protecting price.

said, that he did not feel the same embarrassment as the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, as he had been uniformly against the principle of the Bill. Having yesterday presented petitions against the Bill, he thought it necessary to obviate the charge of inconsistency that had been brought against the petitioners. It had been stated, that they sent up petitions which they did not attempt to support by evidence. Some of those petitions had last year been brought up on the very last day of the discussion; and as the committee were only instructed to inquire into so much of the subject as related to the importation of foreign corn and the duties payable on it, they might well have supposed that they had no business to go before it. It must be recollected, also, that the prayer of their petition was, that the Bill should not pass into a law. When a motion was afterwards made and carried, for postponing the consideration of the Bill for six months, the intention of that motion was not merely for delay, but it was a parliamentary way of throwing out the Bill altogether. From the great rejoicings that took place on the success of that motion, it must be supposed that it was the general opinion of the country that parliament had listened to their petitions, and thrown out the Bill. They were not to expect that it would have been brought in again this year, and they would have acted weakly if they had attended the committee. He did not think that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) had stated the true principles of trade, in saying that we ought to export as much and import as little, as we could. If we imported nothing, how were the merchants to be paid for what they exported? He considered, if the price of 80s. were fixed, that although that price would be a minimum to the public, it would be by no means a maximum to the farmer; for all the evidence had stated, that in the case of a bad harvest, no quantity of importation that could be reckoned on, would prevent corn being raised to a very high price.

supported the Bill, and complained of the imputation thrown on the conduct of an hon. member by another, who had spoken of the connexion between the country banks and the price of corn. Those who knew that hon. gentleman, knew him incapable of acting from such base motives as had been ascribed to him.

said, what had fallen from him had been misconstrued. He had meant to cast no imputation on any one., He had only referred to the influence which a paper currency had on the price of corn.

began by observing, that there was a mode of public argument, which should be avoided in speaking on subjects of great public interest, inasmuch as our vital interests depended on the existence of the constitution and the government. If from day to day false statements and false arguments were advanced even in that House, how was it possible that a great degree of irritation should not exist in the public mind? How could men who did not understand the subject, hear without feeling considerable irritation, that the effect of this measure would be to deprive them of their bread? How was it possible there should not be irritation, when it was confidently stated, not only by a chief magistrate, but by members in that House, that the effect of corn being 80s. a quarter, would be to raise the price of bread to fifteen or sixteen pence. Every peasant in the country knew that it could not have that effect. They all recollected, that when the bread was fifteen or sixteen pence, the price of corn was considerably higher than 80s. Indeed, there was something about the assize of bread in London, which made it much dearer there than it was in the country. Even 50 miles from town, the quartern loaf was usually two-pence cheaper than in London, and many country bakers made a trade of sending bread to town. He should have supposed, that the gentlemen who opposed the present measure must have read the pamphlet of a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), which had been very generally distributed throughout the country. Now the calculation made by that right hon. gentleman was, that when corn was at 90s. a quarter, the loaf would be, not at 15d. or 16d., but at 13½d. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Protheroe) had stated, that the petitioners were not aware that it was necessary or proper for them to bring evidence before the committee who were sitting on this subject. What! when they had in the hon. gentleman an advocate of such saga. city, and so desirous of obtaining their goodwill, how came it that he did not inform them their petitions were referred to the committee, and that it would be advisable to support them by evidence? There were some gentlemen who wished to delay the consideration of this subject for another year; but what object could that answer, except to run again the same course of ruin to our agricultural interests? He had heard about leases being taken by persons intoxicated at ale-houses, at enormous rents. He knew of no such proceedings, and was sure that no landlord of probity, or honour, or common sense, could resort to such a means of getting a lease signed, which would be as void in law, as contrary to every moral principle. He was not in that House the advocate of any particular class of people, but spoke what he thought for the common good of all. If he were to be the advocate of any particular class, it should be of the labouring class. The labourers who followed the plough, or guided the horses, were in his view as deserving of the protection of parliament as any other class. As to that great mass of national property which was in the hands of the stockholders, although he had heard that their interests were opposed to this measure, and that they should petition against it, he was convinced that there was no one who possessed stock that would put his name to such a petition. Any little advantage that they might gain in the price of the quartern loaf, would be nothing in comparison to the great diminution in the security of their capital. Agriculture must be considered the great matrix of all other produce; and it was impossible that agriculture could be much depressed, without carrying with it into the like depression, all the sources of our prosperity. He thought that the labouring classes were much excited at the present moment by orators, and by men endeavouring to gain popularity, who laboured much more to gain popular applause than to do any serious good to the country. He conceived that the price of agricultural labour had been unhappily reduced below what it ought to be.

said, that when a measure of a similar nature was proposed towards the close of the last session, he was amongst those who had voted against it; not because he had been by any means under a clear impression that some regulation might not ultimately prove to be necessary, but because he had thought the moment very ill selected for such a discussion, and because there was then before the House a singular paucity of information on a subject, which appeared to him to be amongst the most difficult, in some of its details the most intricate, and, in the present situation of the country, certainly the most critical to its interests, of any that could be offered to the consideration of parliament. The progress of his opinions on the question had, he acknowledged, been very slow: there was perhaps no man in that House, who was in the whole turn and habit of his mind more adverse to what is commonly called political regulation than he was, especially too on matters in any way affecting public subsistence. This reluctance also was not diminished by the opposition the measure experienced from some of his friends, for whose sentiments upon all subjects he felt the highest esteem and veneration, and amongst others from his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner), whose mind was, as the House had recently an opportunity of observing, deeply stored with information on all matters connected with political economy, and whose judgment on this question he knew, from the private intercourse it was his happiness to have with him, to be founded on the most candid and impartial grounds. Notwithstanding, however, all these weighty considerations, after the most mature and unprejudiced deliberation which he was capable of giving to the evidence now on the table, as well as to whatever information he had been able to gather for himself, he was compelled to say that, in the view which he took of the policy of the question, it did appear to him that some regulation would be imperatively requisite. Under these circumstances, though his sentiments on any matter could be of little importance to the House, and though he was conscious they were of peculiarly little value upon this subject, he trusted he should be permitted, from motives of deference and respect to those from whom he had the misfortune to differ, very shortly to assign the reasons which had brought him to the conclusion at which he had arrived.

With regard to general principles, to which so much allusion had been made on a former night, he presumed that no man in these days could doubt of the benefit which resulted, in all matters of trade, from a perfect exemption from restraint, so far as it might be safely attainable. He was sure his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Horner) would not attribute to him any desire of depreciating general principles. The man who rejected general principles, seemed to him to discard from his consideration the elements of science. But his learned friend would, he was persuaded, admit that general principles were to be used with some caution and reserve. If, in their application to an artificial system, like our own, we were to take them without a due reference to our actual condition; if they were not to be in some degree modified and regulated by the circumstances with which they might happen to be combined, instead of being our sure guide and light, they might lead us into very extravagant and calamitous errors. The question, therefore, was not about the truth or falsehood of these general principles; it was about their application. The problem offered for the solution of the House was, Whether we could in the present condition of the country safely abandon the system which for the most part we had pursued, and cease to encourage our main branch of our commercial institutions, many of the other branches of our industry being in possession of various anti multiplied artificial advantages, and it being admitted (for he had not heard it disputed) that agriculture, the trade of corn, was as sensible to that sort of stimulus as any other description of traffic. His right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) had well stated, that we had a very imperfect discretion over the kind of freedom of trade, which was the subject of discussion. It was very different from the freedom of inland trade: inland trade was the creature of the state; the legislature could both give it freedom and could secure its permanence, but the duration of foreign commerce was at the volition of another party; this other party might terminate it at the moment of its own convenience, and that conjuncture might be, and indeed was not unlikely to be, very inconvenient to ourselves. Thus France would, close her ports when wheat should arrive at the price of 49s. per quarter; she then would be apprehensive of scarcity, and would leave other nations to provide for their own supply. Thus if we sacrificed our agriculture, it seemed to him that we were committing the supply of a considerable portion of our population with an article of prime necessity, to the fluctuations not only of seasons (from the influence of which we could not preserve it), but to the fluctuation of the exigencies, the interest, the ambition, or the passions of perhaps rival and contending powers.

In the consideration of the subject there seemed to be two material questions; first, Whether the agriculture of the kingdom, by a reasonable application of capital, could be very greatly increased? Upon this point he should not have dwelt for a moment, if some doubt had not been cast on it by his two hon. friends (Mr. Baring and Mr. Smith); they alleged that there had been much wasteful application of capital to land; that there were many examples of such improvident enterprises, he did not doubt; indeed, some such had fallen within his own personal knowledge but he would ask, in what branch of the most prosperous and successful commerce there was not much fallacious speculation? The testimony of persons on matters where their own interests were so essentially concerned was, he admitted, to be taken with due qualification. He must, however, reject the whole substance, scope, and tenour of the evidence on the table, if he did not believe that this island might be made to yield a very large augmentation of agricultural produce without any extravagant direction of capital to that object. With regard to Ireland, no man who had ever read of it, no one who had ever heard of it, certainly no one who had ever seen it, could doubt of its affording an almost inexhaustible field for cultivation, or of its becoming, by due means of improvement, a most fruitful and abundant granary for the British empire. If his hon. friends meant to allege, that the capital of the country could be turned into more profitable channels, be should reply that, in the combination of circumstances which composed the power of the state, wealth was only one ingredient, and that it ought not to have more than its proper place in our consideration. Upon the whole, therefore, he had the most entire conviction that this preliminary question was to be determined in the affirmative.

The second question was, whether, if we were to adopt the system of free importation, or of importation at the present low rate of duty, the continental powers might not pour grain into our markets in such quantities, or in such a manner, as to obtain a decisive superiority over the home grower? Now, considering the advantages which many foreign nations possessed in point of soil and climate, in cheapness of labour, and in comparative lightness of taxation, he thought this question also must be answered in the affirmative. This position might indeed be said to be allowed by the amendment that had been moved by his hon. friend (Mr. Baring), which admitted that, at least for a term of years, the agriculture of the united kingdom was likely to be embarrassed by the competition of foreign corn, that it would be expedient to afford it artificial encouragement, and that this encouragement should be given in the mode of a prohibitory duty. His hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner) could have only voted for the amendment because he considered it as a lesser evil than the measure proposed; for he held that, even if the agriculture should decline, it must be left to find its own level. His learned friend did not depreciate the agriculture of the kingdom, he valued it as au important part of the national prosperity; but his doctrine was, that it was not, under any circumstances, a fit matter for legislative regulation, unless indeed it could be proved that there was a risk of a deficiency of supply. This hazard, however, his learned friend looked upon as trivial. He alleged, that if we could not get corn from one country, we should be able to procure it from another, _and therefore regarded any danger of this sort as so visionary as not to be put into competition with the advantages which he represented as the likely result of a perfect freedom of importation. These advantages were, a general cheapness, a salutary reform of the artificial part of our system, and a great increase of our manufactures and our foreign trade. Though he did not mean to dwell on those details, he could not help observing, that these benefits appeared to him to be somewhat problematical, both with regard to their attainment, and to their amount, if attained. The cheapness, to be efficacious, must be considerable and unfluctuating, and this he thought very doubtful. It was to be accomplished by the reduction of the price of grain, which was to diminish the price of labour. He was far from denying the influence of the price of corn on that of, labour; but it must be admitted, that the degree of this influence might be very much varied by circumstances. In Ireland, for example, it would have very little effect, because corn was not the general subsistence of the country. In countries where subsistence formed the principal part of the expenditure of the labourer, the effect would of course be much more considerable. In England much of the expense of the labourer consisted in articles of luxury, which, however, were become essential to his comfort, and were therefore to be reckoned among the necessaries of life. Now the operation of the price of corn must be chiefly confined to that part of the price of labour which belonged to subsistence. It might, to be sure, affect in a slight degree some other articles, but several it could not affect at all, and in these articles, he apprehended, consisted the great difference between the prices of this and of other countries. It was in vain to disguise, that the real source of the dearness of England was the weight of its taxation—a heavy burthen, but a burthen which, as he had always thought, was wisely, nobly, and necessarily incurred by the country for the preservation of the land and of the manufactures, and for the conservation of every interest that was most dear and valuable in society. Nor could we look to its speedy reduction; it could only be diminished by that, which he earnestly prayed might happen, a long and profound repose, and a steady unrelaxing adherence to a system of rigid retrenchment and economy.

With respect to the correction of the artificial vices of our system, no man wished more to see such a reform than himself, so far as it could be effected without hazard to the interests of the country; but he must deprecate the immediate application of general principles to our internal supply of subsistence, which he considered as the shield of our commerce and manufactures against the envy and jealousy of the world. His hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner) had laid much stress upon the present friendship of France, and had called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare, whether there was any danger to be apprehended from that quarter. This was an argumentum ad hominem, rather than an argumentum ad rem. He would ask his learned friend, whether he thought it contrary to all probability, that, in the course of a few years, France might revive her ancient jealousy of the commercial greatness of this, country? But it was not France only which was to be feared, it was well known that America and most of the maritime powers of Europe had always more or less looked askance at the naval and commercial prosperity of Great Britain. This was a danger which no statesman could put out of his contemplation, because it arose out of the peculiar construction of our power. He heartily wished that all such rivalships and animosities might be for ever extinguished; but that man must have nerves of iron, who could commit the subsistence of the country to such a chance.

The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to slim the change, which he conceived any system that should essentially check the progress of our agriculture, must produce in the distribution of the population, in its condition, and in the nature, as well as in the degree, of the power of the country. No man could hold the importance of our manufactures in higher estimation than he did: they constituted a most essential part of the strength and greatness of the state; they were a powerful aid to the agriculture of the country: but they contributed not only to the cultivation of the soil, they fertilized and enriched the human mind; they added largely to the stock of human knowledge; they diffused science; they in all ways embellished and refined society; they in every mode conduced to the moral, social, and physical happiness of men, and perhaps in the last-mentioned respects they conferred even greater benefits on other classes of the community, than on that portion of the population which was employed in their own particular paths of industry: but the basis of this structure was the land; we flourished much through our commerce and our manufactures, but we flourished also because we had hitherto been a great agricultural nation.

The right hon. gentleman contended, that in the discussion of this question, we were never for one moment to forget that we were a great substantive power in Europe, having a prevalent weight (which he trusted we should ever use for our own honour and the benefit of surrounding nations) in the grand balance of the political world; and we were not to disguise from ourselves, that we attracted the envy which was inseparable from the eminence of our station. We were not like Holland, and the other countries to which we had been compared; nature had prohibited those states from raising their own stock of subsistence; they might advantageously and safely depend on other nations for supply. If they were assailed on one side, they were sure of finding protection on another; but this country was, from the very construction of its power, peculiarly exposed to confederate jealousy and hostility, and on no account more than for its commercial and maritime prosperity.

One of the chief benefits which the advocates for the free importation of corn held out as an inducement to the adoption of their system, was cheapness. His hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had stated that subsistence and population went together. If this position were true (and he believed nothing in political economy was better established), our population would go on greatly increasing, and we should be altering its distribution, not upon general principles, not by leaving things to find their natural level, but, artificially, by ceasing to encourage agriculture and leaving the other branches of our industry in possession of all their advantages, and thus inviting capital from the land to manufactures. We should be forcing our population into a shape, which (though most salutary in its due proportion) must be acknowledged to be liable to great fluctuations of fortune, which was dependent in some of its branches on the caprices of taste and fashion, and which was always peculiarly sensible to deficiencies of subsistence. If under such circumstances we should be placed (a situation by no means without example) in altercation with the maritime nations of the world, upon matters relating to our maritime and commercial interests; and if we should feel that, besides impeding the egress of our manufactures, they could turn upon us the discontents and other evils incident to scarcity, what would be our power in such a negociation?, He wished those gentlemen who represented the commercial and manufacturing interests in that House, or any others who were most peculiarly concerned in those honourable and meritorious branches of the public prosperity, to consider how their interests would be likely to come out of a negociation conducted under such fearful embarrassments? Would England be what England had hitherto been? He must maintain that, under such a dependence on foreign nations for our subsistence, the solid fabric of our power would be shaken to its very foundation. It had been said that this danger was visionary and speculative, that we had experienced formidable confederacies, but were always able to procure supplies of grain. It was true that we had been the object of such hostile combinations, but it was to be recollected that we had met them with an improved and largely increasing, and not a decayed and languishing agriculture. There was a wide difference between the condition of a country which was approaching to the point of its own supply, and that of one which was receding from it. In some of the years of deficiency in the present century, in 1812, for instance, the balance of importation had been very small; and if in that year we had been at a great distance from the point of our own supply, instead of being as near it as we were, we should have had to have endured a dearness approaching to scarcity.

But when gentlemen talked of speculation, he wished the House to examine whether there was not some speculation on the side of the advocates of free importation. In the first place, he must repeat, he thought the great cheapness, which was promised, very problematical, and next he considered the expected advance of the manufactures as very dubious. Before the manufactures could add one particle of wealth to the country, they would have heavy losses to repair. They would have to make good the loss sustained in agricultural produce, and they would have to supply the diminution in the consumption of this island as well as in that of Ireland. Their progress, too, must be in some degree impeded by the distress of the landed property, which, including the various interests immediately connected with it, comprised no small portion of the national wealth. Such a system could not be adopted without much public misfortune. The reduction of the gentry of the country would be a great public misfortune—a heavy calamity to the people. It was not true that the landed proprietors had been rolling in wealth—they had suffered their portion of privation. He begged to be understood as intending no invidious contrasts. To the immortal honour and renown of the country, there was not one class or description of persons in the community from the highest to the lowest which had not gloriously sustained its station, and had not evinced its due share of that patient and illustrious fortitude which had carried us through the painful and protracted struggle from which we had been just delivered. He meant no more than that the landed interest had borne its share. The impoverishment of the tenantry of the country was, in his contemplation, to be reckoned as a great public misfortune. The diminution of the inland trade was a great public misfortune. The state of the peasantry would be a heavy public calamity. What was to become of that valuable part of the community? All writers on political economy admitted, that nothing was more difficult than the change of men from one employment to another. The agricultural labourers would not be instantly absorbed by the manufactures; a man was not easily transferred from the plough to the loom. The peasant was not readily converted into an expert and skilful manufacturer. There would be then an interval, in which this most moral (as it had been justly described to be) part of the community was to be Consigned to indigence and idleness.

Thus, as it appeared to him, we could not at present, at least, depart from the system of policy we had hitherto pursued, without bringing on the state much public calamity, and imposing great and unmixed suffering on a considerable part of that portion of our population which was now employed in raising the national subsistence. He nevertheless must repeat, that the subject was full of difficulties; and it was not unnatural that those, who most agreed on other topics, should differ in their sentiments on this. For his own part, after the most mature and dispassionate consideration, it was his clear conviction, that we could not permit our agriculture to decline without tearing up the most sure and stable anchor of the power and independence of the country.

wished to repel, in the strongest manner, the charge made against his constituents and himself, of encouraging and exciting popular clamour and disaffection. The whole tenour of his life disproved this accusation. It had been said, that he had been guilty of misrepresentation in stating that if the present measure were allowed to pass, the loaf would rise to 16d. He held in his hand the table from which the assize of bread was regulated in the metropolis. Looking at the nearest average price in London, be found it was 95s. when it was 80s. in the maritime districts, to this 11d. was to be added for salt, making on the whole about 96s. which gave the loaf at 15¼d.; an allowance of half an assize, or another farthing had been since granted to the bakers, so that the loaf would be 15½d. To point out the little confidence which was to be placed on the opinion of committees, he alluded to that which sat on the corn laws two years ago, and which recommended a protecting price of 135s. as absolutely necessary to save the farmers from ruin, whilst now they had come down to 80s. and declared the latter sum perfectly adequate to the necessity of the case.

, after passing a warm eulogium on Mr. Elliot's speech, adverted to the arguments of the hon. alderman who spoke last. From all he had said at different times, he collected his opinion to be, that whenever the aggregate average price of corn, in the maritime districts, should be 80s., it would be found, that the average price of wheat, to make flour in London, would be from 90s. to 95s. But those facts which the hon. alderman had stated, were no facts, and his inferences not true. By looking at the Gazette, which was open to all, it would be found, that during the identical years which he had mentioned, the aggregate average of the maritime districts was higher than that of London, and that during his own mayoralty, it exceeded that of the metropolis by 3s. 3d. He reproved the conduct of those who had presumed to say that the direct object of the measure was to raise the price of bread. If any one should convince him that it would have that effect, he would abandon it instantly; but it was intended, and he thought calculated to lower the price of corn, and to reduce the high rents. The more he had heard on this subject, the more he was persuaded that the measure was right in its principle and in its details.

asked, if the Bill in its effect reduced the price of corn, how it could have so beneficial an operation in upholding the agricultural interest? He had given the minutest attention to the subject, and the result of his investigation was, that its aim and object was to keep up the price of grain; in fact, if it had not this effect, he was at a loss to ascertain what could be the cause of its introduction. The noble lord repeated his former observations upon this subject, and pointed out the close connexion between the present question, and the state of the currency of the country, and the artificial financial measures which were pursued by government. He admitted the existence of agricultural embarrassments, but he denied the possibility of their removal by the legislative protection which was proposed. In fact, they must extend it to other articles as well as corn, before they could reckon upon its consistent application. Above all, he condemned the Bill, because it made its appearance at the only period in which the public looked to a lower price of food, as arising out of the return of general peace.

said a few words in support of the measure.

rose amidst a cry of "Question, question!" but the hon. gentleman declared, that notwithstanding the anxiety manifested to come to a decision, he felt it his duty to call for somewhat more of deliberation, and to state his sentiments upon this important subject. He should not, perhaps, at that stage of the discussion, have thought it necessary to trespass upon the attention of the House, if it were not for what had fallen from the proposer of this measure, or rather, indeed, if it were not for what had not fallen from that right hon. gentleman. For that right hon. gentleman had declined to state that about which, indeed, the House had not heard one word from any supporter of this measure, namely, upon what grounds it was thought necessary to agriculture, to to fix the import price at 80s. The House had heard much with regard to the necessity of protecting the landed interest and promoting the prosperity of agriculture, but nothing had yet been stated to shew the necessity of fixing the price mentioned in the Bill. It was not sufficient, for the satisfaction of the House, or of the popular feeling, to deal in vague terms upon this important subject. It ought to be distinctly explained why the import price of 80s. was required for the benefit of the landed interest; and some such explanation was naturally to be looked for from the right hon. gentleman, who had not, however, said one word about it: but the right hon. gentleman, instead of explanation, and contrary to his usual practice, had, on this occasion, made up in vehemence for the want of argument, and after some trifling criticism upon the statement of an hon. alderman, had thought proper to assert, that the object of the measure before the House was to reduce the price of bread. This assertion would not, however, serve to allay the popular complaints; for the same expedient was tried in vain upon the gaping multitude at Maidstone, by lord Darnley. But the subterfuge was too coarse to have any effect. It was" indeed, obviously absurd; for if the purpose and tendency of this measure were not to raise the price of corn, how could it be said to hold out the prospect of remuneration to the farmer? Why, he would ask, should gentlemen persevere in supporting such a measure if it promised no benefit to the farmer, while it was so alarming to the manufacturer, and excited such loud and general clamour through the country? The evidence would not bear the supporters of the measure out in their assertion, that the price which they required was necessary. The real state of the question was, that owing to the prolongation of the war and other circumstances, the agriculture of the country was in a state of distress, from which it must be as much the wish as it was the interest of every class of the community that it should be relieved. That relief should be; however, temporary; and then, by a gradual diminution of the price of labour, of the quantity of taxation, and of the amount of rents, the farmer would eventually be able to cultivate his land with andvantage. But 'no,' said the supporters of the measure, we will not lower our rents; we will support our rents as they are, and the consumers of corn shall pay a higher price for it. As to the argument deduced from the necessity of rendering ourselves independent on any foreign supply, it was valueless. In things of a more critical nature even than corn—in naval stores—we had seen, during the late war, every combination of effort resorted to, to prevent us from obtaining them; but without effect. What the legislature had now to determine was, whether or not the proprietors of land should make any concession (he did not wish for a considerable one), in order to enable the farmers to proceed advantageously with their tillage? If not—if by artificial means it was attempted to support the rents as they stood, the consequences, by slow degrees, would be these: in the first instance, a high price of corn would be maintained: by degrees this would turn out of the country one branch of industry after the other; the population of the country would diminish, by the emigration of the people in quest of cheap food; the corn grown in the country would then certainly be adequate to its consumption; ultimately the agriculturist would find out his mistake, and corn would full to a state of the greatest depression.

begged leave to recall the attention of the House to the stage of the Bill which was before them. It was the second reading. They had not then to determine any question of price, or average, or duration, or any other question or detail. All that they had at that time to consider was, whether or not it was proper to adopt any measure at all on the subject; and he presumed, that however great might be the variety of opinions on particular points, all must admit generally that some alteration of the existing laws was indispensable.

declared that he had listened with the utmost attention to all that had been said on both sides of the question, and that the resul twas a decided conviction in his mind, not only that it would be improper to legislate on the subject, but that great danger might be the consequence of legislating on it. He gave credit to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Robinson) for the way in which he had repelled some improper insinuations thrown on the motives of those who supported the measure; but he was surprised at the right hon. gentleman's conclusion, which was in direct contradiction to all that he had said before on the subject. If he understood the thing at all, the original proposition was not that rents were too high, but that corn was too low, and that it ought to be raised to such a price as to enable the farmer to cultivate his land with advantage, without reducing the landlord to the necessity of lowering his rents. But that night the right hon. gentleman had turned round, and had said, that he would not have brought forward the measure, had he not thought that a reduction in the price of bread would be the consequence, attended by the lowering of rents! Let the landed interest consider this—let the financier look to this—let him look to what must follow, the reduction of establishments, the reduction of assessments, the reduction of the occupation of the artisan, and a long train of attendant evils. As to what had been said of the petitions against the Bill, in his opinion those petitions deserved notice in proportion to the number of the petitioners. To those who contended, that the people were not fit judges of the subject, he would reply, that they were much more competent judges of it than they were of theology, and yet it was well known that they had recently signed petitions in great numbers against the renewal of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the establishment of the Pope in England As to the popularity which might be obtained in the one way or the other, those who made popularity their object, would meet a fate similar to that of the boy who ran to discover the ends of the rainbow, and who experienced a ducking for his pains, while the gaudy vision vanished from his sight. He should have a bad opinion of the House of Commons, if he thought that on a subject like this they could be swayed by any wish to court popularity. But he would nevertheless advise them to remain where they were if they did not do so, they would speedily be called on to legislate on a subject of still more difficult handling. If they adopted the proposed measure, and the consequence should be that in eight months corn should be at a very high price, would not the manufacturer have a right to come in his turn and require redress? And yet to grant a redress adequate to the necessity, would in that case be impossible. The fact was, that Parliament seemed to him to be emulating the philosopher in Rasselas, who fancied that the sun, the wind, and the rain were all under his control, and that at his pleasure he could raise a tempest or produce a calm. As for a temporary measure, that seemed to him to be the worst plan of all. He concurred heartily in the amendment proposed by his hon. friend.

explained. It was true he had said that in his opinion the effect of the Bill would be to lower the price of corn, not to raise it, and consequently to diminish the rents; but the rents to which he had alluded were those rents which had been raised very high, in consequence of the land owners speculating on a very high price of grain.

was afraid he must be counted among the number of those who were said to be divested of common sense. The effect of the measure was not a permanent rise in the price of corn; it might be to make it fluctuate between 70 and 80s. Locking at the changes of late years, when the price had been at 55s. and at 125s., could a price from 70 to 80s. be considered too high? It was the object to raise the price of corn, but not to make it permanently dearer. It was to give the consumer a lower price on a given number of years. If they could only prevent the recurrence of such a change of prices as had been seen, more would be done for the good of the poor than by any other legislative measure. What misery had been occasioned by a price so high as 125 shillings! The Bill provided the only remedy against high prices: it still kept the ports open, and no more could be done for times of scarcity. As to the petitions which had been presented on the subject, God forbid that the House should not pay attention to the petitions of the people. But it was their duty to weigh the arguments which those petitions contained; and having sifted them to the bottom, then to judge for themselves, and act according to the best of their discretion. It would not appear wonderful that the petitions should contain so much objectionable matter, when it was recollected that the ground of many of them was the statement said to have been made by the chief magistrate of the metropolis, who had declared that when wheat was 80s. a quarter, the quartern loaf would be 16d.—a fallacy so obvious that he would not occupy the time of the House by exposing it.

The House then divided on Mr. Lambton's amendment, That the Bill be read a second time that day six months:

On the motion, that the Bill be committed on Monday, Mr. Baring moved as an amendment, that it be committed on Monday se'nnight. Upon this a second division took place:

The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Monday.

reprobated the indecent haste with which a measure of so much importance was precipitated.

objected to the expression indecent haste, which had been used by the hon. member.

said, that if the expression had any application at all, it was to the noble lord (Palmerston), and not to the chairman of the committee of ways and means.

said, that when he should find it necessary to take lessons of decency, he would not, from the specimens which he had seen of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennet), think of applying to him.

would distinctly say, that he did not apply the expression to the chairman, but to the noble lord; and he repeated it, that the manner in which this business was attempted to be hurried through at that late hour of the night, was a most indecent act. He considered a bill which had the better government of the army for its object, to be a most important measure. How did the noble lord know that he would not pursue the same course as he had on former occasions when mutiny bills had been brought forward? Under these circumstances, he was determined that the Bill should not pass without his attempting to introduce some alteration.

wondered that the hon. gentleman had not taken an opportunity of expressing his opinion on a former evening, when the Bill was read a second time.

said, the hon. member had perhaps, from the feeling of the moment, used stronger language to express his sense of what was doing than he otherwise would have employed.

knew that it had been the intention of his noble friend to introduce no alteration in the present Bill, as it was for so short a period, and the subject was to come again so soon before the House. Nothing was intended insulting to the dignity of the House.

hoped the noble lord would not persist on going into the subject at that late hour.

reminded the committee, that this would be the proper time to make any alterations in the Act.

said, what was most objectionable was, that it happened merely by accident that any body had had an opportunity of proposing any alteration. This was the proper time, and not, as was proposed, a late period of the session. He did not wonder that his hon. friend had felt some indignation at the manner in which it was attempted to hurry through the Bill.

said, there was nothing unusual in the proceeding of his noble friend—(hear, hear!)—and if any person thought it was unusual, it was from their not observing the orders of the day.

said, it had stood two days on the order book; and if any member wished to propose any alteration, and did not know of this order, he was grossly deficient in his duty. The next bill must of necessity be brought on in the early part of June, which could not be said to be a late period of the session.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he conceived there was nothing unusual in bringing in a bill on one day at past 3 o'clock in the morning, reading it a second time at past 2 o'clock, and hurrying it through a committee about one o'clock?

After some further observation, the chairman reported progress, and the Bill was ordered to be recommitted on Monday.