presented a petition from the merchants of London, engaged in the Wool trade, against the imposition of a Tax on Foreign Wool. The petitioners submitted, that the imposition of such a tax would prove ruinous to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country.

supported the prayer of the petition. At present we were, he said, enabled to carry on a competition, in the continental markets, with Silesia, and the Netherlands; but the effect of the proposed tax, would be, to destroy the competition which we had hitherto kept up and to transfer our foreign woollen trade into the hands of continental manufacturers.

thought the proposed tax was a necessary protection due to the agricultural interest. At present, the price of British wool was ruinously low, and the only way to raise that price was by the imposition of a duty.

opposed the petition, and hoped that the conversation would not terminate without some expression by parliament of its feeling upon the subject. If we were to revert to the times of poverty and barbarism, then it might be well to impose a duty upon raw commodities; but if the advance of prosperity was our object, no course could be more destructive of it.

thought, that whatever might be their object,—barbarity or prosperity,—the existing system could have only one end—the total ruin of the agriculturists. The importation of foreign wool into this country was daily increasing, while our export of manufactured goods was proceeding in the contrary direction. It ought to be recollected, too, how large a proportion of that imported wool was worked up into manufactures for home consumption.

said, that those gentlemen who considered themselves the protectors of the agricultural interest adopted very unfair and vulgar views, both as to their own interests, and those of the country. They first sought to obtain a high tax upon corn, and were anxious to follow that measure up by procuring a high tax upon wool. That was their plan. As to the said produce, most of it was used in manufactures which were consumed at home, so that the effect of an increased duty upon it must necessarily be to increase the expense of the manufactured article to the consumer at home; that was, to the people of the whole country. Thus the agricultural interest sought for protection for itself, regardless of the mischievous effect of the measure to the general interests of all other classes; and they even seemed insensible in this instance, that their own interest would be depressed by the very means by which they would fain uphold it.

said, that gentlemen on the opposite side were continually asserting that those who espoused what was called the agricultural interests knew nothing about their own concerns, and they were always begging the agriculturists to let the other side manage their affairs for them. He had not been long in that House; but he had always heard this doctrine, not only upon the question of wool, but upon all similar occasions. For his part, all he deduced from such language was, that the landed interest ought to be on their guard when gentlemen on the other side told them that they intended any measure for their benefit. It would be found, that the price of inferior kinds of wool had fallen in greater proportion than cotton or any other article. He would not pledge himself to support either long wool or short wool; for he wished to do that which was substantially just to the whole country. The noble lord had said, that if the House reverted to the former law, it would be going back to a period of barbarism; but he begged to remind the House, that the change in the law respecting wool had taken place only two or three years ago. He would maintain, that the consumers would not be benefitted by taking off the tax. The House ought to strike a balance between the manufacturing and agricultural interests, and to go into the question at once; as the petitioners only asked for inquiry.

said, that if inquiry could be gone into for any good purpose, he, for one, would not urge its refusal; but when it was known that the bare mention of inquiry had caused a considerable alarm in the country, and as he was satisfied that no case could be made out in the committee, he thought it would be uselessly adding to the alarm that existed, to go into the committee. His hon. friend had said, that the agriculturists knew their own interests, and therefore ought to be allowed to take the case into their own hands. The hon. member might be right, as far as the interests of the class to which he belonged were concerned; but there were other interests to be considered, and for the sake of those interests he trusted the Committee of Inquiry would not be granted. It could not be denied that great benefit had been derived to the country from the introduction of foreign wool. The manufacturers admitted that a great quantity of British wool was exported by mixture with the foreign wool. Now, if it could be proved that the quantity of British wool thus exported was greater than the importation of foreign wool, no case could be made out to justify the claim for a Committee of Inquiry, on the ground that injury was sustained by the home-grower. What was the case since 1824? It could be proved, that we had double the quantity of wool exported, compared with former years, when the duty did exist; and looking at the returns for 1827, it appeared that the value of woollens exported to Germany, from which we got so much wool, was not less than one million sterling.

said, he hoped that government would concede the committee, for the purpose of doing justice to all parties. The agriculturists had not been fairly dealt with on this occasion. They had been represented as hostile to the manufacturers. The fact was not so: they sought only for that fair protection to which they were entitled. He would beg the attention of the House to the present condition of the growers of long wool to what it was before the tax on foreign wool was removed. At that time it was urged, that as there was not such wool in the world, the growers of long wool in Yorkshire and the middle counties would obtain a ready market for their commodity by exportation: but what was the fact? The French government had laid on a tax of 30 per cent on all wool of that kind sent to that country. So that the purses of, the landed interest here were not only drawn for the benefit of the foreign agriculturist, but also for the benefit of the French revenue. He hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite would pause before he pushed too far his principles of free trade; which he could not but think were, in some respects, a curse to the country.

begged the House to recollect, that there stood on their paper a notice of a motion for Monday, on the general question of the Wool trade. This being the case, he should abstain from entering into the subject, or from giving any opinion of the course which ministers intended to pursue, until the whole question was fairly before the House.

said:—I hope I may be allowed to ask certain questions of ministers relative to the Currency of the country. Considering the advanced state of the session, and that early next year an important alteration is to take place in that currency, I hope the chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to ask whether it is the intention of government to adhere to the plan already laid down of preventing, after the 5th of April next, the issuing, re-issuing, and negotiating of notes in England for less sums than 5l.? My next question is, whether it is their intention to allow the circulation of notes for less sums than 5l. in Scotland and Ireland? and, if that question should be answered in the affirmative, whether it is their intention to take any, and if any, what step, to prevent the circulation of the small notes on this side of the Scottish border? My last question is, whether it is their intention to propose any alteration in that part of the act which prevents banking companies from consisting of more than six partners, at any distance less than sixty-five miles from London, from issuing notes or bills of exchange for less than 50l. payable in London?

I admit the great importance of the subjects to which the hon. baronet's questions refer, and have no objection to answer them. To the first I say, that government sec no reason to depart from the policy laid down in 1826, with respect to the currency, or to that part of it which consists in the circulation of small notes; and it is their fixed determination to adhere to the law as it was then enacted. As to the small circulation of Scotland and Ireland, government are not prepared to take the same course; but to prevent any advantage being taken of the circulation of small notes in Scotland, it is my intention, at an early period, to introduce a measure, for the purpose of hindering the circulation of those small notes within the limits of the other parts of the united kingdom. As to the third question, whether it is the intention of government to alter the law affecting banking, so as to allow Joint Stock companies of more than six partners, within sixty-five miles of London, to issue bills of exchange for less than 50l., payable in London, that is a matter which does not rest with the government alone, but must be the subject of negotiation with the Bank of England.

wished to call to the recollection of a right hon. gentleman opposite, what he had said some time ago; namely, that it was intended to allow a silver circulation concurrently with the gold one. That would no doubt go a great way to cure the evil of a diminished circulation of small notes. As to the Scotch notes, though there were only forty-five members from that country in that House, and sixteen in the other, they acted in concert, and on all occasions carried their point when any measure was introduced affecting their country. The moment any measure which was considered in any way opposed to the interests of Scotland was brought forward, every man, woman, and child, in that country raised their voices against it, and they were almost always successful. However, as far as the Scotch notes went, he thought they were safe.

said, he was ready to bow to the superior knowledge of the right hon. gentleman below him upon this subject; but he would yield to no one in an anxious desire to advance the agricultural interests of the country. The hon. member went on to observe, that light, or, as they were called in Lincolnshire, "heath lands," were well suited to the cultivation of barley and oats, but were unfit for wheat. These lands ought to be protected, or else they must go out of cultivation. He found that, during the last eight years, there had been imported into this country, one million and eighty three thousand seven hundred and thirty nine quarters of barley, of which fifty seven thousand three, hundred quarters still remained in bond. The hon. member, after some further calculations, concluded by moving, as an amendment, "that when barley should reach 33s., and be under 34s., the protecting duty should be 15s."

maintained that the proposed average protection was the natural one, and was founded upon the proportions which had been maintained for years. If they were to give barley an undue protection, they would, pro tanto, discourage the growth of wheat, which was the natural food of man.. Besides, they could not give an undue protection to barley, without lessening its quantity; and the experience of 1826, when barley was scarce, was sufficient to show them what a fearful decrease such a circumstance was likely again to produce on our excise revenue.

asked, why they should raise the protecting price of wheat, and not that of barley? The lands capable of growing wheat were favoured, while the lighter lands, fit only for growing barley and oats, were neglected, and likely to be thrown out of cultivation. It was last year admitted by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that the protection extended to barley and oats was not sufficient.

was of opinion that the resolutions already afforded too much protection to the agriculturists. He would, therefore, oppose all amendments which went to augment that protection.

wished that no alteration should be made in the proposed scale of duties; but if any were to be made, he thought it should be in favour of oats rather than barley. He thought the agricultural interest was sufficiently protected by the duty at 58s. and 59s., as about that point was the pinching place.

did not think that the mere circumstance of an alteration having been made in the scale of wheat afforded a reason for a similar alteration in the price of barley. Each case ought to rest on its own merits. The scale of wheat had been altered, because the duty imposed by the last warehousing act had failed to exclude wheat, when its admission was injurious to the agricultural interest. When that act was passed, barley was so much in request in this country, that there was not enough for the distilleries, and the average price for some time had been 40s. Under these circumstances, two hundred thousand quarters of barley had been taken out under the act, and the wants of the country had been relieved; but that introduction of barley did not put it in a situation corresponding to that of wheat. The committee on whose report the House had acted had stated, that the supply of barley was inadequate; and in consequence of that, the scale of barley had been raised last year. When the resolutions were first brought in, wheat was at 60s., with a duty of 20s. At that time the price of barley was 30s., with a duty of 10s.; but subsequently it was 32s. with a duty of 12s. Applying the same rule of proportion now, would give a duty of 12s. on 30s.; while, in fact, the duty on 30s. was 15s. It was therefore impossible to say, that the protection of barley was not now sufficient, since it actually exceeded the amount of the duty imposed at the time when the hon. member supposed the proportion between wheat and barley was truly preserved. With a duty of 12s. when the price was 33s., he assured the barley-growers they were safe.

was of opinion, that unless some restrictions were put on the bonding system, the agriculturists must suffer. He thought a ship bringing foreign wheat into this country ought to be made to pay the duty of 20s. on her entering port, or that at least she should register at that duty; for, unless she did so, they would do no good for the agriculturists.

wished the House to guide themselves by the ratio of last year. That ratio was adopted after mature deliberation and full discussion. It was said, that in Mr. Canning's bill the scale of oats had been raised, while that of wheat had remained the same. That was no objection. The ratio there was taken between wheat and barley on one side, and oats on the other, and great mischief would result to the agriculturists if it was departed from. Farmers had always a hankering after wheat crops; and if they were encouraged in that prejudice, they would not employ that succession of crops which was greatly for the benefit of the country. He should object to any thing that had a tendency to make our population change their wheat food for oats, or any other substitute.

said, the scale of last year had been raised with regard to barley and wheat, not to favour the growth of those grains more than the rest, but because the old scale was essentially erroneous.

said, that as the resolution now before the committee had been adopted after mature deliberation, he could not consent to change it. His reasons for resisting the amendment were these: In the case of wheat, the price of last year had been found insufficient; for, under the then scale, the importation had been such, that it had been found necessary to alter the price and rate of duty. They had not had the same experience with respect to barley; as the importation of barley had only just exceeded two hundred thousand quarters—a very small quantity, when there had been such a peculiar demand for it. But, even as the scale now stood, it was higher for barley, considered with regard to wheat, than had ever been before known, with the exception of last year. But they had better not bind themselves merely by what was done last year, but take a calculation for fifty years past, and find the relation which barley bore to wheat and oats. Taking the calculation of the last fifty years, and assuming as the ground of that calculation, that wheat was at 100s. the relative proportion which barley bore to that sum was 53s. and that of oats 35s. Assuming that to be the true scale, and that the duty was 24s. 8d. on wheat at 62s., in order to maintain these relative proportions, when barley was at 32s., the duty ought to be 13s. 7d.; but the duty really proposed was rather above that amount, being, in fact, 13s. 10d. on a price of 32s. Oats and barley certainly ought to have encouragement from the legislature; though it ought not to protect the growth of either with the same jealousy as wheat, because the latter might be said to be a staple of life.

contended, that the averages of the last fifty years could not be considered a fair average of price, because it embraced a period of twenty years of war, during which the ports of the continent were closed.

said, he had an amendment to propose. If wheat and barley were the same as in the scale of last year, oats ought to be higher. The protection given to oats was not sufficient for Scotland. The land of that country could not grow wheat; and if sufficient protection was not afforded to the growth of oats, that land must cease to be cultivated. In pursuance, therefore, of the feeling expressed all over Scotland, he should move, as an amendment, "that instead of a duty of 9s. 3d. at a price of 25s., the duty should be increased to 10s. 9d. at a price of 26s."

thought it would be in vain to attempt to persuade the House, that the price of oats was not sufficiently protected, and referred to a passage in Mr. Jacob's report, which stated, that a cargo imported into this country from Amsterdam, and sold at 19s., was so reduced, after all the different charges, as to leave only 6s. a quarter for the person who speculated in the venture.

contended, that the average price of oats in seven different foreign ports, was, for a series of years, not more than 7s. a quarter, while the price in this country was 30s.

observed, that there was a greater fluctuation in oats than in any other description of grain. He referred to the Report of Mr. H. Canning, by which it appeared, that oats could be shipped from Hamburgh to England at from 6s. to 9s. a quarter.

supported the amendment, and observed that Mr. Jacob's Report was very amusing to read; but if the writer had been so unfortunate as to farm some of the poor lands in Lincolnshire during the last few years, he was satisfied he would have thrown his own book into the fire.

expressed his surprise that the proportion observed in all former acts should have been abandoned in the case of this most beautiful of all culture, the row culture of pease and beans. The importance of it, in benefitting the cultivation of wheat land was well known, and its utility in giving employment to whole villages ought not to be forgotten. In the process of planting, in the three hoeings which took place in this species of agriculture, the labourer earned from 23s. to 25s. an acre, and it was to be remembered that this was labour done by hand, and not by the plough, as in other cases. He did not mean to ask for any additional protection, but merely for the adoption of the same ratio of protection which had been always afforded. We never had received any great supply from foreign countries of these articles, and why should we now invite it by the adoption of a lower scale? He would therefore move, "that the ratio should be taken at 41s. instead of at 37s."

thought that unless a special case was made out, it would be better to adhere to the scale of last year.

supported the amendment, and observed, that the culture of this grain was by hand, and gave considerable employment to the agricultural population.

maintained, that there was no way of coming at what the standard price of grain would be, but he thought it probable that the price of all grain abroad would depend much on what was passing here. It was not a fair way of proceeding to take, as the agriculturists now did, the most favourable harvests into account, when they were forming their averages. The harvest of 1818 was an unfavourable one, yet they never heard anything of that during their debates. The fair way of looking at the question would be, to take the good and bad harvests together, and to form their averages on that basis. As to the low prices at which it was said that grain could be imported from abroad, he defied any one to prove that it could be introduced at such prices with any benefit to the importer. The plan of government was calculated to mitigate the extremes of fluctuation, and for that reason was entitled to support.