said, the Resolution which he was now about to move, was founded on various precedents. When a party, called upon to take certain oaths, to enable him to take his seat, refused to take them, the uniform course had been to move a new writ immediately. He would therefore move, "that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Clare, in the room of Daniel O'Connell, esq., who, having been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of an Act passed in this Session of Parliament 'for the relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects,' has refused to take the Oath of Supremacy."

begged to ask the learned gentleman, whether this was a resolution to which the House, consistently with law, could come? He found in an act of the present session, the following clause, "and be it enacted, that when the session herein directed to be first holden for the purpose of registering freeholds shall have terminated in any county, the Lord-lieutenant or other chief governor of Ireland shall cause notice thereof to be inserted in the 'Dublin Gazette:' and that in case of a vacancy in the representation of any such county in this present parliament, before the publication of such notice of the termination of the session for such county, no writ shall issue for the holding of an election of a knight of the shire for such county, until after the publication of such notice." Now, as the act also required, that no session for registering freeholds should be held until forty days after the commencement of the act, and that forty days had not yet expired, he doubted whether it would be regular for the Speaker to direct the issue of a writ which could not be complied with.

was quite aware that this doubt would be suggested, and was inclined to think that, notwithstanding the objection, the motion would be better as it stood. The order of the House was not that a new writ should be issued, but merely that the Speaker should issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown. He apprehended that the Clerk of the Crown, notwithstanding the Speaker's warrant, might suspend the issue of the writ until it could be legally issued. The law, I apprehend, will justify the Clerk of the Crown in disobeying—if it can be called disobeying—or rather in not acting upon the Speaker's warrant until the time specified by act of parliament for the issue of the writ has arrived. The clerk will receive the warrant, but he will not act upon it until the law allows him. Thus it appears to me, that the House will perform the duty that devolves upon it, without acting inconsistently with the law. However, the order of the Speaker to issue his warrant may be delayed till the forty days are expired, if that course is deemed the better one; and the question, therefore, is, whether the warrant shall be immediate or delayed for forty days.

certainly thought, that the warrant should not be issued until the law allowed the writ to issue; because he thought that the act of parliament should be obeyed.

put it to the Solicitor-general, whether it was reasonable to propound to the House, without notice, a proposition to which it was likely there would be considerable opposition. This was undoubtedly the most important step connected with this case; yet they were called upon to take it without notice. He would move, that the debate be adjourned till Thursday.

would support the amendment. This was a perfectly new case, and as delay could not be prejudicial to any party, the House ought to take time for consideration.

After some further consultation, the debate was adjourned till Thursday.

rose to move for certain papers, having reference to the colony of Sierra Leone He observed, that, in 1825, a commission had been appointed to ascertain the state and prospects of the colony of Sierra Leone. That commission proceeded to its destination, and entered into a full investigation of every thing connected with the colony. The result of its labours was a report which contained a frightful representation of the condition of the colony. It was now about forty years since we originally commenced the settlement, for purposes different from those to which it was now applied. About twenty years since, it was applied to the latter purposes. With respect to the original purposes of the colony, it was found, that though some of the settlers brought from Nova Scotia and Barbados were capable of assuming the highest functions in the administration of affairs, the general body of the settlers was of a degraded character. With respect to the colony, as applied to its present purposes, the case was no better. The liberated negroes who arrived there were, for the most part, labouring under sickness and disease. There was no proper accommodation for them after they did arrive. No attention was bestowed upon the curd of their maladies; there was no system of regulation to induce habits of industry; there was no provision for the religious instruction of the negroes, so that they continued almost in a state of barbarism and idleness. The report stated, that in order to supply instruction to two thousand one hundred and eleven youths, who were scattered over the settlement, there were only twenty-two schools and six teachers, with four native assistants. Another point for grave consideration was the mixed commission for the termination of the Slave-trade. The Slave-trade had been repressed on one part of the African coast, but it raged with undiminished violence in another. Sierra Leone was at so great a distance from the present scene of the Slave-trade that the vessels captured for being engaged in the illicit traffic, had to traverse a distance of about seven hundred and ninety miles. The consequence was, that before the vessels arrived at Sierra Leone, one half of the liberated Slaves died on board: the other half being in such a state of disease, that a considerable portion of them died before adjudication, and those who survived were unfit for active exertion for a long time after. It had been suggested that the adjudication courts should be removed nearer to the scene of the Slave-trade, and Fernando Po had been pointed out as a convenient place for their establishment. The period had now arrived when it was necessary to take the whole subject into serious consideration. It was expedient to consider whether the establishment could be so far amended, as effectually to serve the purpose for which it was intended, and if not, whether we should persevere in a system which had produced such unsatisfactory results. He would not now state whether he intended to found any measure on the papers for which he should move. It was the opinion of many persons, that the establishment at Sierra Leone should be wholly abandoned, whilst others thought that it ought to be maintained at any cost. He would not give an opinion either one way or the other. He would, however, go so far as to state, that if it were possible to improve the settlement and render it efficient, he should wish it to be maintained. The hon. member concluded by moving for copies of the correspondence between the governors of Sierra Leone and the colonial secretary, and a variety of other papers relating to the colony.

was glad that the papers had been moved for, because they would be the means of correcting many misrepresentations which had got abroad respecting the colony.

said, it appeared to him extremely proper that a full investigation should take place as to the settlement. It was of serious importance to ascertain whether the advantages or disadvantages which had resulted from the colony of Sierra Leone, counterbalanced each other. The colony was established with the view of introducing, not only civilization, but all the habits of trade and cultivation in those districts. It was a fit object of inquiry, whether the want of success which had been imputed to these establishments was derived from circumstances connected with the localities of the settlement, or whether the blame rested elsewhere. Peculiar misfortunes had attended these colonies. Many distinguished men had successively been sent out to administer the government there, and, unfortunately, all of them, with the exception of sir C. Macarthy, (who received death from the hand of the enemy) had fallen victims to the climate. The hon. member had correctly stated the great disadvantages resulting from the length of the voyage after capture; the effect of which was, that sickness was found to prevail, after landing the unfortunate victims. It was fit that all these disadvantages should be obviated if possible; and, as the means of doing so, it had been proposed to establish the mixed commission at Fernando Po instead of Sierra Leone. The former place was not only nearer the spot where the chief captures were made, but it would place the commission in a situation where they would have a better prospect of communicating with the interior of Africa, and endeavouring by that means to check the trade. The hon. member had alluded to the want of religious instruction, and of education generally. On that branch of the subject, he would observe, that the government was acting in co-operation with that Society which had in view the extension of religious knowledge and moral instruction; and he should be happy at all times to contribute to the attainment of such beneficial objects.

The motion was agreed to.

said, he rose to introduce the motion on this subject of which he had given notice. He began by observing on the great importance of the question. His object was, to have a perfect; free trade in Corn. In stating this, he meant that the change should be effected by the gradual removal of those restrictions which had grown up with this vicious system, and which had failed to answer the purpose for which they were intended. Some hon. members were anxious that he should postpone the measure for the present session, on the ground that there was not time; but the present time was the most proper. Ministers might wish to get rid of parliament; but looking back to the periods to which the House had sat for several sessions past, he could not but think that there was full time for the consideration of the subject in a committee, and for the discussion of any measures which might grow out of it. The present time was the most fitting, for another reason. The people, in many parts of the country, were in want of food; and if he proved, as he should do, that a large supply from abroad would not only be a benefit to them, but no injury to the landed interest, he thought he should lay a reasonable ground for the inquiry. All they should have to do would be, to consider the operation of the measures passed since 1821, and how far their results had borne out the policy which produced them.

The hon. member then adverted to what had been said a few days ago on the sub- ject of free trade; namely, that we had a very large portion of the working classes unemployed, and a large capital, which if invested in manufactures, would give employment to those classes; and yet neither our manufacturing power nor our capital were productive, because, under the present system, neither could find proper employment; and he contended, that the cause of so extraordinary an anomaly was a matter deserving of strict investigation. Could any thing be more useful than to give a solution to this enigma? He was not bound to assign the precise causes of the very artificial situation in which the country was now placed. He was not bound to point how far that situation had been produced by the effect of taxation; to what extent the changes in our currency might have caused it; or how far it was owing to the Corn-laws. The fairest way would be, to attribute it to the operation of the three causes combined. The hon. member, after observing that we ought not now to endeavour to retrace our steps in all we had done, or to attempt remedies which were out of our reach, but to apply ourselves to what was really practicable, went on to notice the vast increase which had taken place in our manufactures within the last seventy years, our manufacturing classes having within that time risen to a degree of greatness and power unexampled among nations and unequalled by any other classes in the country. The result was, to place the greater part of the world dependent upon us for manufactures; those parts at the same time supplying us with the raw material. Having thus so large a portion of our population for a long time engaged in manufactures, we could not now throw them back for support on the other classes of the community. Our duty therefore was to adopt such measures as, by again opening a demand for our productions, would give them the means of supporting themselves. To shew the effect of the change that had been made in our system, he would carry the attention of members back to the half century preceding the year 1765. During that period England was a corn-exporting country, and on the average of those years sent forth annually about two hundred and fifteen thousand quarters, thus coming into competition with the Corn of Poland, and often underselling that of Dantsic in the foreign market. The average export from Dantsic in the same time did not exceed eighty-three thousand quarters annually. From the great increase in our manufactures, it became necessary to import Corn to feed our artisans, and in return we sent out the produce of their labour.

Now, it was clear, that any change in our system with respect to Corn, which tended to narrow the means of employment among the manufacturers, must, as a matter of course, reduce them to distress. He would show how this had been done. There had been from 1773 to 1795, and from that period, with little interval, till 1815, virtually a free trade in Corn; but at the latter period the increase in the manufactures commenced, and in the same degree the improvement of the agricultural interest advanced. The hon. member here entered into several calculations to show, that while the trade in Corn was free, we were an exporting country; and that in those periods when the greatest temptations existed to the foreign grower by the high prices which sometimes existed here, such as 100s. the quarter, and sometimes 110s. and 120s., the quantity of Corn imported bore no proportion to that exported. Taking twenty years from 1796 to 1815 inclusive, our whole import of Corn amounted to 9,622,000 quarters, being an average of 481,135 quarters. If, then, we had any fears of the excess of foreign import, that was the period when it might have been made with the greatest ease. It was true that we were at war, during that period: but hon. members would remember, that when the war was at its height, and even when an attempt was made by the Berlin and Milan decrees to exclude us from the trade of the continent, we received a large supply of Corn. The facts he had mentioned afforded a proof, that we need have no fear from an open trade in Corn.

The hon. member then went on to contend, that the operation of the Corn-laws was, to limit the exertions of the manufacturer, by raising the price of provisions at home, and thus rendering him less able to compete with those who were opposed to him in the foreign market. He would contend, that what prevented the employment of the million of men, women, and children—for there were that number of the working classes now out of work—was the present state of the laws. If those laws did not exist, the poor labouring manufacturer could exchange the produce of his industry for corn for the support of his family. He was allowed to bring in silk or claret, or other articles; but he was prevented from introducing the (to him) most important article of corn. It had been said, that corn was sold in some parts in Europe at 25s., while here it was 75s. the quarter; and that the opening of the Corn-trade under such circumstances would ruin the English agriculturist. Now, supposing the first part of the statement to be correct, it afforded an additional reason for altering the present system; for in proportion as the difference of price was great here, as compared with that on the continent, so must be the pressure on the British manufacturer. The hon. member then went into several statements of the price of corn in Dantsic, Biscay, Hamburgh, Holland, and Bordeaux at several periods, to show that while the trade in corn was free, the difference of prices in those places, as compared with what they were in England at the same periods, was small, and by no means calculated to excite alarm in the minds of British agriculturists. He contended, that if our system of Corn-laws was altered, the price of corn on the continent would be equalized by the price of corn in England; and thus the English price would be the average price of the world, deducting the charge for insurance and freight. For a hundred and twenty years the price of corn in England and the price on the continent had never varied more than the price of transit between England and the continent. What was the case now? In 1826, the price of corn was 57s. 3d. in England, and 37s. 10d. in Holland; a difference which never existed until our own restrictive laws created it. The consequence of our present system was, that the high price of corn in this country caused our manufacturers to enter every market in the world under great disadvantages; and we should have lost every market in the world had we not had in the better division of our labour and in the superiority of our enterprise, machinery, fuel, and roads, advantages which counter balance the fearful odds which the disparity in the price of food produced against us. The country gentleman, who fancied that the destruction of that disparity of price, would be injurious to his interests, was completely mistaken. The Opening of the trade in Corn would make the price of corn rise at Dantsic: it would not make it fall in England; on the contrary, the price in our market would be kept up, and the only alteration it would make, would be, that to the foreign manufacturer the price of corn would be increased. The hon. member entered into a statement of considerable length to prove, that the present monopoly of the landed interest was no less injurious to themselves than to the country. In looking over the returns connected with the Corn-laws, he found, that whenever restriction had taken place, the price of corn had immediately lowered in our market, and that the landholders had not derived from it the benefit which he anticipated. He was therefore guilty of narrowing the means of our manufacturers, by his endeavours to keep up a higher price here than in other parts of Europe, and was at the same time pursuing a system which, unless a relaxation was made in it, must ultimately be productive of his own ruin. A curious fact connected with this subject had been communicated to him. An hon. member had compiled a set of tables, which illustrated very forcibly the evils of a restrictive system. It was not, perhaps, generally known, that up to a given time the Corn-trade in France and Sweden had been completely free. The hon. member had proved that, up to the year 1823, the price of corn in France was 63s. 8d. After the introduction of the restrictive system the price had fallen to 44s. 6d.—a result which showed that the system of restriction, while it injured the manufacturer, did not benefit the agriculturist. In Sweden, for nine years before the introduction of the restrictive system, the price of corn was 27s. For the six years which had elapsed since that time the average price of corn was 17s. 6d.; being a reduction of nearly one-fifth from its former value.

The hon. member then proceeded to point out the mischief which the high price of corn created in the manufacturing districts. Corn was the last article with which the manufacturing labourer could dispense. When the price of it was high, he worked for ten, twelve, and even fourteen hours a day in the hope of procuring, by his extra hours of work, an additional amount of wages to enable him to purchase bread for his family. He did not understand the manner in which that additional industry on his part operated to his disadvantage. He created by it a glut of articles of which he might easily get rid, if he were permitted to take corn in payment; but he was prohibited from such a course by our system of Corn-laws; which thus aggravated the evils which they originally created. The fatal consequences of this system were not, however, confined to our manufacturers: they recoiled with fatal force upon our agriculturist. The hon. member entered into several details to prove this point; and then proceeded to show, that by adhering to our restrictive system, we were establishing a blockade against Ourselves, assassinating our own commercial greatness, and leaving our population to all the evils of a curtailed supply. It had been said, however, that we ought to put our faces against a free trade in corn, because no country could be strong which did not depend on its own resources for corn. If that were so, how was it that the republic of Venice, which never produced on its mud banks corn enough to feed a hundred the part of its population, had achieved such glory and attained such greatness? From what source was it that Venice derived its power? Not from its land, not from its Corn-laws, but from supplying the world with commerce and manufactures. If the senators of Venice had been mad enough to pass a law compelling their population to feed themselves upon com the produce of their own soil, they would soon have reduced that population to the number of individuals whom her small islands could support; and1 yet, a system which every body would have acknowledged to be most injurious if it had been adopted at Venice, was lauded as most excellent when adopted in England!

The present system of our Corn-laws was also calculated to create very injurious derangements in the currency. It was time, he thought, for nations to consider the propriety of making those mutual relations, by which one country could exchange with another what was useless to herself for something capable of being useful. As long as things remained on their present footing, nothing good could be done: corn would be rotting and spoiling in Poland, while British manufactures would be sunk in depreciation at home. Once admit the principle of fair reciprocity of exchange, and the products of these countries would soon find the proper degree of value common to both, and be alike useful, instead of being as at present comparatively useless—a change which would incalculably add to the national wealth and strength of a country situated like England. These Corn-laws were pregnant with mischief to the whole community: and who would consent to the continuance of a system which had wrought so many fatal fluctuations? No doubt, at the time of the last change, a good deal of gold had gone abroad to pay for foreign corn, which, under a different system, would have been supplied by manufactured articles. Foreigners would take our products in return. There might be at first some aversion to particular articles; for nations only accommodated themselves gradually to the introduction of new commodities. Coffee, for instance, had only crept in gradually upon the taste of the people of this country. Every article of luxury, indeed of necessity, had been introduced by degrees: nay, clothing, which was so obvious for human comfort, had in many places got into use after a good deal of trouble to induce people to wear it.

What did he propose as a substitute for the present evils? He had no hesitation in saying a free trade: not, however, suddenly; for, after long-acquired habits, he knew that any alteration, to be ultimately effectual, must not be violent in its operation, but gradual and accommodated to circumstances. The duty upon corn, according to the present plan, varied, he believed, from 13s. to 15s. per quarter. Now, he would propose that, instead of being, as at present, fixed upon a graduated scale, rambling through uncertain variations, a fixed duty should be put—say of 15s. per quarter upon wheat, 10s. upon barley, and 8s. upon oats. This would be about the relative amount of their value. If they would allow him to go into a committee, he would then propose that from these rates there should be an annual reduction of 1s. a quarter, and he relied not so much on the advantage of this gradual reduction as upon the acknowledgement of the principle, that the ports were to be open, at a fixed rate, for corn to the free trader, as well as for all other articles. Were this once enacted, the advantage would be greatly in favour of the agriculturist. It would at once open the ports of Great Britain for the reception of her proportion of the surplus corn of all the other countries in the universe. God knew they had manufacturers enough to pay for every thing, pro- vided they could obtain proper employment! The effect of the measure would undoubtedly be, to raise the price of corn all over the world, and England would have the means of exchanging her manufactures for her share of the commodity. In this plan there would, he believed, be no fluctuation or alternation of price, vibrating in the markets, and alarming the people. The more the markets, like individuals, were scattered in this wide world, the less chance there would be of a reduction of demand for their manufactures, and the less probability of that deficient supply of food which occasionally led to famine and misery, and in fact was the alleged cause of these Corn-laws. A steady price would, by Opening the market, generally keep the commodity at its fair value, and prevent those dangerous vacillations of which every body complained. It would also prevent gluts; for the demand for their manufactures would be regulated by the exchanges, and the prices would be equally determined.

Another advantage from the change would be, their getting rid of the monstrous and unwieldy machinery of what were called the averages. The country gentlemen who depended upon the equity of these were not aware of the tricks and frauds which were daily practiced in the regulation of these averages. The dealers of corn were here more than a match for the country gentlemen; and he had a variety of representations from Liverpool, Cork, and other places, showing how very imperfect these averages were taken, and how, in many instances, where tens of thousand of quarters were purchased, they were struck at a much lower amount of sale. They were, in fact, like the Corn-bill itself, perfectly inadequate; not one clause answering the purpose for which it was intended.—He had then another proposition, which he hoped they would concur with him in thinking beneficial, and which he thought was only fair as long as the duty should be continued. For instance, instead of leaving the farmer ruined, as he sometimes was, by a plentiful harvest, he should be ready to give him a bounty on exportation, to enable him to meet his home calls. This would have the effect of leveling the prices pretty fairly throughout Europe. An intelligent farmer had once told him, that he was obliged to sell his corn to meet pressing exigencies at 35s. a quarter, and, before seed time came, to buy it again at 55s.

The hon. gentleman then proceeded to refer to the returns of the duty levied upon corn during the last nine years, and to contend, that under a proper system of regulation a revenue of 1,200,000l., instead of 256,000l.,might have been raised upon them, to the relief of the manufacturer, whose taxes would then, in a great degree, be paid by the foreign consumers. In the event of any export of grain taking place, he was not disposed, however, to allow a bounty of more than ten per cent; because the worst description of grain would always be exported, and that would be a sufficient encouragement; but if it appeared, on experiment, that the agriculturist was too highly taxed, they could either relieve him of a portion of that taxation, or give him countervailing duties in another way. In the first place, however, all the protecting duties which now weighed down our commerce might at once be swept away. The duty, for instance, of twenty per cent on hops, and the duty of thirty per cent on silk, about which so much had been said, all might be swept away, and this country could then enter fairly into competition with the first of the nations of the continent, while its machinery, its capital, and the industry and skill of its manufacturers, would ensure it a predominance.—There were, of course, many objections to a plan like his; but there was one of an hon. friend near him (Mr. Whitmore) which, he thought, required an answer. The objection was that if corn reached a very high price, it would be impossible to raise the duty. His reply was that there would be no necessity for raising the duty, because a scarcity could never occur. The Crimea, Canada, Poland, any country where corn was grown, would be anxious to supply us; and if the harvest failed in one place, when the ports were open to all the world, we could be supplied from another. What were the arguments by which the country gentlemen met this proposition? "Agriculture," say they, "is the basis of our wealth, and agriculture must be supported." But, did the House not know that the blacksmith and the weaver were agriculturists to as great an extent as the farmer. Did not the manufacturer and the artisan pay for the food which they consumed; did they not pay for the corn which they might import; and were they not, therefore, in the employment of their capital, quite as much agriculturists as the landowner or the farmer? The House, he contended, was misled by the Corn-laws; and it would be found on examination, that so far from being an encouragement to agriculture, they operated to retard the increase of every production of the soil. Every thing paid a duty calculated to press heavily on the manufacturer or the mechanic. Apples, if imported, one hundred per cent; bacon or pork, fifty per cent; eggs, of which there were sixty-six millions brought into this country in a year, seventeen and a half per cent. Hides, seeds, lambskins, hay, wool—every thing which could add to the comfort or convenience of the people was saddled with heavy duties, in a land which was actually flowing with milk and honey [a laugh]. Honourable members might smile; but was there any luxury of the earth which was not to be procured in this country, by those who had the means of purchasing it? Every thing which the World produced was at our command. He might, therefore, well say that the land flowed with milk and honey; the only misfortune being that they did not flow a little lower down.

The hon. member then combated the doctrine, that land was the source of national wealth. What was it made states great, but commerce? In illustration of which position he quoted the histories of Carthage, Genoa, Venice, and the Hans towns. He would have the country gentlemen to consider, whether the law which they maintained for the exclusion of foreign corn was sufficient to compensate them for the diminished demand and price for the various other products of their farms. A gentleman who had a farm at a short distance from Manchester observed, that whenever trade was brisk at that place, every article belonging to his farm brought high prices; and he added, that he could tell by the price which his bailiff Obtained for the produce in the market, what was the state of trade in Manchester. He thought he was borne out by proof and argument in the principle he had endeavoured to establish, and that that principle, if adopted, would lead to perfect freedom in commerce with respect to every article. He desired no other trammels to be imposed upon trade and commerce than such as might be necessary for raising the revenue. The strength and prosperity of the country was said to depend upon the flourishing condition of agriculture. He did not think this was the case exclusively. Besides, the agricultural interest depended on the ship-owners, the manufacturers, &c., who were all indissolubly connected. If they allowed these interests to decay, the landed interest would decay along with them. He urged gentlemen to look back at the times of Charles 2nd, and to examine the state of England at that period. England was then thinly-peopled, and its exports were principally confined to raw materials. Let gentlemen look at the state of the landed interests then, as contrasted with their subsequent prosperity and improvement;—let them trace the progress of cultivation, and observe the increased value of landed property, which had since taken place, in exact proportion to the increase of commence and manufactures. Much as we ought to attend to the home market—and he admitted that was an important consideration—he would not neglect the foreign market. The consumers at home paid the taxes; but if we ever admitted the principle sought to be established by sir John Sinclair, with regard to the support of the home market, independently of the multitude of persons whom we should thus throw but of employment, we should cast the whole weight of 52,000,000l. of taxes on the home market. He stated this as a reason why the home market should not be held up as the object of exclusive support and preference. By carrying on commercial intercourse with foreign states, we made foreigners pay a portion of our taxes.

There was one objection which he wished to anticipate. It would be said—"This country is very heavily taxed, and therefore we cannot enter into competition with other states not similarly burdened." Now, heavy taxation was a reason why we should endeavour to extend our commerce; for in that way only could we get free from the load which oppressed us. It was also said "countries where corn is cheap are very miserable." This was, because they had no manufactures; as in the cases of Ireland and Poland, where corn was cheap for this reason. There the growers of the article could not get corn to feed on. A country without trade, as Ireland and Poland, was in the situation of a country of slaves, where there was plenty of rum, sugar, coffee, cocoa, but the slaves got none of them. The slaves in the West Indies were unable to consume the produce of the soil for the same reasons exactly as rendered Irishmen unable to consume wheat and oats. The latter got potatoes to feed upon, and nothing else; the wheat and the oats went in payment of rent to their landlords. Rear up a portion of Irishmen as manufacturers, and then they would be able to give their labour and ingenuity in exchange for a portion of the wheat and oats.

It was necessary to mention one other objection. Some persons said— "it is not fit that we should trade with other countries, if they will not trade with us upon equal terms." They added—"unless a principle of reciprocity be acted on by them, it is proper to prohibit the importation of foreign corn." He denied this: he admitted that reciprocity was a good thing; and if we could persuade France to give her wine and oil in exchange for our hardware and cloth, it would be all very well; but still, if she refused to act thus, we should not, on that account, decline to accept such of her commodities as we could advantageously accept. We ought to take from France whatever we could get cheaper there than elsewhere. Russia had put us under a ban as regarded reciprocity, yet we good-naturedly took her hemp, and her tar, and her tallow. Why did we do this? We did not send her any manufactured goods directly, and acceding to the argument referred to, the amount of our dealings with Russia must be a dead loss. But Russia was supplied by France with brandy, wine, &c., and Portugal sent her wine, olives, and other articles to Russia. Our hardware and cloth found their way into France: our jackets went to Portugal; and thus we paid for Russian hemp and tallow, as if our clothing and hardware went direct to Russia in exchange for them. The means by which the operating was effected might be circuitous, but they involved a principle of perfect reciprocity in the end. It was our duty to buy at the cheapest and sell at the dearest markets we could, and thereby, and by multiplying our markets and exchanges, to carry on as much trade as possible.

There was one point more on which he begged to be allowed to say a few wards. He meant on what was called over-production. An hon. alderman had talked, the other night, of over-production; and he did not wonder at it. That worthy alderman did not see far enough into the subject. He could observe what was going on between A. and B., in the city of London; but he could not carry in his mind more distant and complicated relations. As to over-production, he would deny that it could exist generally in this country. There might be a temporary over-production in one article, but it could not exist in all. Inequality there might be. A greater quantity of some one article might be produced than could be taken off by the demand at that particular time. But, still he maintained that, in all articles of exchangeable value there was, or ought to be, no limit to their production. There could be no over-production of the necessaries of life. He only wished there could be in every village in the kingdom a steam-engine of many hundred horse power, constantly employed in the manufacture of bread and meat. The people would then have all they wanted. Yet, they were not to be allowed to have the same abundance of food by exchanging manufactures for it! On an average of production, there was never more produced than enough. If cloth, which was now sold at 20s. a-yard, could be produced in such quantities as to fetch only ls. a-yard, the only difference would be, that no body would go naked or, at least, that nobody would go without having little bit of cloth He held it to be one of the greatest blessings of this country that there was no limit to production. All he wanted was the liberty of exchanging the produce of this country for the produce a other countries—that there should be no legislative interference to prevent the produce of every country from being spread equally over the surface of the earth. When we exclaimed against what we collect over-production, we exclaimed against our own absurd regulation Let those be got rid of, and we should hear no more of over-production. It was said, at the present moment, that Manchester, and our other large manufacturing towns, were overloaded with goods. Why were they so? Because the legislature prevented those goods from being exchanged for others. Suppose Manchester produced a thousand webs of cloth; and suppose it were so thoroughly blockaded, that none of those webs could be sent out of the town, would not the consequence be ruin? Yet such was pretty nearly the existing case. Those who complained of over-production were the very parties by whom it was caused.

He thought he had made out a complete case for his motion. If, however, honourable gentlemen entertained any doubts on the subject, he recommended to them to learn the "Catechism of the Corn-laws," which he had already mentioned. They would there find, that those who complained of over-production were the cause of it. For all this evil government were to be blamed. They ought to interpose. If they wished to see the whole population of the country in a state of health and prosperity, they must give them the means of exchanging their produce with the whole world. Every body would then be employed; consumption would be increased; the taxes on consumption would consequently grow in amount; and the wealth and power of the country would be greatly augmented. He called on them now to do so. Difficulty and distress were spread over the face of the land. If the causes of the existing evil were removed, the effect would speedily cease. It was the landed interest, the peers, who ruled parliament, and made the laws on these subjects. He would suppose a case, and state a converse proposition. If the landed interest chose to persevere in saying, "let us supply to the manufacturer and trader all the corn they are to have," being the Lords of that and of the other House of Parliament, they could effect their object. Now for the converse of the proposition. Suppose the manufacturers of Birmingham, Sheffield, or Manchester, happened to have a preponderating influence in parliament; and suppose they were to say that they would have none but foreign corn, because the produce of five days' labour would purchase a quarter of foreign wheat, while the same amount of labour would purchase only half a quarter of home-wheat—the consequence would be, that the second quality of land would be all thrown out of cultivation; and the produce of the land of the first quality would be rejected by the manufacturer, if he did not obtain it as cheaply as he could that of foreign countries. What he wished for was, that neither party should have the power of injuring the other; but that government should step in, and see that justice was done to both parties. By such means the energies of the country would be left to exert themselves freely and advantageously. The object would then be, not to preserve this or that law of Restriction, but to give to the whole community the means of placing England in the situation which she ought to hold in the world. We were at present labouring under our debt. It was unquestionably a very heavy burthen; and the only means of reducing it would be, to extend our foreign commerce, and thereby to render all the world tributary to us, and sharers in the load. Setting aside the question of money, that would be the only mode of giving food and employment to every man; and of thereby improving the condition of the lower classes; who, he was persuaded, were never disposed to acts of violence, but were only driven to them by necessity. Such were the grounds on which he rested his motion; and he thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him state them. Having called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the subject, the hon. member concluded with moving, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the Corn-laws 9th George 4th, cap. 60, with the view of substituting a fixed Duty on the importation of Foreign Corn into the United Kingdom, and a Bounty on the export of Corn, instead of the present graduated scale of Duties."

seconded the motion. He said, that his hon. friend had gone so fully and so ably into the question, that it would be quite superfluous for him to repeat the various topics which had already been so powerfully urged. It was evident that the necessary effect of the existing Corn-laws was, to produce fluctuations, which were more destructive to the prosperity of the country than any other circumstance whatever. Conceiving a committee might obviate this evil, he trusted that the House would consent to the motion.

said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. member who had brought forward this motion, he felt no objection to endeavour to deal with it. He should not endeavour to follow the hon. gentleman through the whole of his wide, various, and discursive theme, in the course of which there was scarcely a topic which he had not touched, an argument which he did not anticipate, and no doubt, as he himself thought which he had not satisfactorily answered. Under such circumstances, he should not trespass upon their attention with general and elementary statements; for he could hardly believe that even the hon. member himself supposed that any one required to be instructed upon topics which he had, notwithstanding introduced in so extraordinary a manner, He called the attention of the House to the fact of the hon. gentleman, at that period of the session, and in the present state of the country, having felt himself justified in calling upon the legislature to retrace the steps it had taken last session, after the most deliberate consideration, and to rescind a law before it had come into full operation, or received a fair trial. From the hon. member's own shewing, the subject of the Corn-laws was so bound up with other questions that required more time for their consideration than parliament could now bestow, as to render it impossible to come to an immediate decision upon it. The hon. member had most disingenuously treated the subject. He had described it, and argued upon it, as a question at issue between the country gentlemen and the manufacturers. No liberal-minded man could possibly have condescended to describe in terms so irritating a question of such grave importance. In fact, he had described the Corn-laws, modified even as they now were by a late act of parliament, as nothing less than a tax imposed for the sake of the agricultural interest upon the industry of the country. Such a description of our internal policy was invidious, if true; but it was worse than invidious, because it was totally destitute of foundation. The parallels which the hon. member had attempted to draw between this country and Venice and Holland were insults to the understandings of the representatives of a great commercial country like this, who must see that there was a decided difference in the relative situation of countries compelled to be entirely commercial from necessity, and Great Britain, which was not only a manufacturing and commercial, but a great agricultural country. An hon. friend behind him had just then wittily and well said, that to talk of the corn grown in the state of Venice would be no less absurd than to boast of the mignionette grown in London.—In reply to the hon. member's statement, he would oppose a statement in figures, which he would challenge him to disprove, which fully bore him out in maintaining, that so far from the system being inefficacious, and the predictions of last year being disappointed, every promise that could be expected to be verified by experience, in the present state of trade and the manufacturing population, had been abundantly fulfilled by the equability of price which wheat had maintained ever since the passing of the present law. A comparison with the fluctuations of other years, when there had been short crops as there was last year, would satisfy the House as to the preference which was due to the system now in operation over its predecessors in similar circumstances. From the September of 1799, which was a year of deficiency in the wheat crop, to the next May, the price fluctuated from 74s. to 115s. a quarter. In 1800, which also was a short crop, from 95s. to 154s. In 1810, from 85s. to 113s. In 1828 and 1829, during the same period, and under the present system, the fluctuation had been confined, despite of all the hon. member had said that evening in disparagement of the system, to the difference between 58s. 8d. and 76s. 7d. The several fluctuations, therefore, were, in each preceding year of short crops, decidedly, in some instances, enormously greater than had been experienced since the present system had been adopted.—The hon. member's plan for improving our situation consisted of a fixed price, and holding out an advantage to our growers to export. He talked of giving a protecting duty of 20s. a quarter, 15s. he would have preferred; but still more gladly would he have embraced the project to make it only 10s. a quarter. In fact, he said, he would have preferred—even in the teeth of the late Mr. Ricardo's constant advice to the contrary,—giving no protecting duty at all.—The hon. seconder went still further, and said he would not propose the adoption of any fixed rate of duty, but leave that to be decided by a committee, which should apportion it according to the existing burdens of the community. This vague proposition was little short of having every thing at sea: nor it possible to conceive such a proposition could be combined with the idea of any fixed duty. To countervail all the disadvantages under which the agricultural interest would have to labour, the hon. member proposed that a bounty should be held out to it on the export. [Mr. Hume.—I did not call it a bounty, I called it a drawback.] He would convict the hon. member both of inaccuracy and forgetfulness, by reading the words of his own motion, in which the word bounty was actually inserted in his own hand-writing; and what was more remarkable was, that the hon. member should have proposed a bounty, which was both unpalatable to the public and injudicious in point of policy; because its possible effect might be to render the supply of the people of this country still more precarious than it had been of late years.—Again, he begged to remind the House from past experience, of the impossibility of keeping up a fixed duty in times of high price of corn. No minister, however bold in other respect he might be, would dare to support a high bounty, even on the export corn, during a period of great distress and scarcity. The principle, even if a good one, must be sacrificed to expediency. The opinion of a very high authority on this subject, Mr. Tooke, who had just published his thoughts, and anticipated in his pages the arguments of the hon. member was, that neither 20s. nor 10s. duty could be maintained; particularly if dearth should, as was usually the case, visit this country and France at the same time. It required but little experience to prove that this project would be merely chimerical, were we to be reduced to a state of extreme scarcity, and a famishing population. The hon. member it was now clear, was, a recreant from his favourite principle of free trade, and had become the staunch advocate of a fixed rate of duty on the food of the people. So much for consistency! then he would ask the House, would it consent at that late period of the session, on arguments such as they had heard, and positions which he flattered himself he had amply refuted, to accede to the motion, and run the risk of all the fruitless excitement which had been sure to follow, whenever so vital an inquiry had been instituted by the legislature in former instance?

said, he would oppose the motion, as the existing law had been found sufficient for its object, and as the present was not a fit time for discussing any alteration. There were two crises in the corn market—when prices were too high and when they were too low. The late harvest had afforded the first crisis, and it was that which the manufacturer had to fear. The House had protected the farmer, only until he had obtained a compensation for the scarcity of the last year. Latterly the business of the farmer had been positively that of a gambler. They had been obliged to watch every turn of the market. The stability of prices depended on the permanency of the law. The present period of manufacturing distress was not a proper time to bring forward the question. The hon. member's speech was not inflammatory, but it might lead to such, in the course of the discussion. He should say, that the distress of the manufacturing districts could be ascribed solely to the fluctuations of commerce. Spain, Portugal, and France, had Corn-laws as severe as those of England. The law in France was a positive prohibitory act. It prevented all importation until the price was 54s., and in one arrondissement until it was 64s. 4d. Considering the low price of wool, he did not think the agriculturists were protected too much.

, agreed that the Corn-laws should be settled; but then they ought to be settled upon permanent principle. He considered the present law preferable to that for which it was a substitute; but, nevertheless, it was far from being perfect. The right hon. gentleman had argued upon the lateness of the session, and the disturbed state of the manufacturing districts; but if the Corn-laws were not well established, the hon. member for Montrose was entitled to the thanks of all those who were of opinion that the best mode of arriving at truth was by repeated discussion. It was unwise to consider the question as one between the agriculturists and the manufacturers; for it was a question affecting the country at large. He was not one of those who considered agriculture as a found of wealth distinctively. Agriculture in itself was a species of manufacture. Industry was the foundation of wealth, and ought to be promoted in all its branches. He would take, for instance, a large country, possessing a variety of resources for an excessive population—a country growing an excess of corn greatly beyond her wants, but wanting manufactures; and again he would take a smaller country, having a dense population, and though abounding in manufactures, yet deficient in the produce of corn; was it not manifest, that if the smaller country took her corn from the larger territory, the larger would take her manufactures in return? Every hon. member who took a pinch of snuff to stimulate him in the course of the debate must be aware that that pinch of snuff had been sent for to America. The President of the Board of Trade had read an extract from Mr. Tooke's book; but that extract did not apply to the arguments of his hon. friend, as his object was, to bring the protecting duty on corn round to 3s.; and if it could be brought down to that amount, it was not likely that this country would be visited with those seasons of scarcity which so often occurred abroad; and if it should happen that a scarcity occurred in England, the chances were, that there would not exist a like scarcity in other countries at the same time. It was true that there had been a scarcity in France as well as in this country during the last year; but that distress was not general. He maintained that the larger the surface of country from which we got our corn, the more benefit to our manufactures, and the less danger of scarcity. In a word, the nearer we approached to a free trade in corn, the better for the manufacturing and general interests of the country. The more hon. members considered the principles laid down by his hon. friend, the more they would feel the propriety of acting upon them.

was opposed to the motion, which he considered to be founded on a gross delusion respecting the advantage to the country of what was termed free trade. He was free to admit that it was desirable to guard against the possible danger of famine by increasing the facility of the importation of foreign grain; but he denied that our manufactures would be sent in payment for this increased import. Experience had shown, that those continental nations which generally sent us their corn, did not take our manufactures in payment, but insisted on gold. Neither did our dealings with them secure us against the evils of a season of scarcity; for in the event of the apprehension of a dearth in grain, Russia, Sweden, Holland, and Denmark, invariably prohibited all exports of the growth of their own soils to this or any other country. The hon. member for Aberdeen had dwelt much upon what he called the consequences of our free trade in corn from 1795 to 1815; but he seemed to forget, that 1796 and 1797 were years of famine; that 1801 was also a year of famine; and that in that year the king of Prussia declared, that if our price of corn was high, so would his export duty be high; and if the price were low, so would his duty be low. The hon. member also wished to impress the House with his own erroneous views of the origin of the present distress in the manufacturing districts. According to the hon. member, that distress was wholly owing to the vicious system of our Corn-laws, by which foreign markets were closed against our manufactures and the wages of labour thereby lessened. "Now," said Mr. Wodehouse, "in answer to this delusion of the hon. member, all I will say is this—let the hon. member leave the decision of the question to the weavers of Manchester, or to those of Norwich, I will give him his own time and place, and his own chairman. I will tell the weavers of Norwich, that Mr. Hume is coming down to explain to them his views of the causes of their distressed condition. Let the hon. member do so, and let me state mine, and I will be crucified if I do not upset him. The distresses of our manufacturers are not owing to the Corn-laws; they are the consequences of that piece of legislative infatuation, Mr. Peel's currency tampering bill of 1819. This has put our feet in the stocks, and rendered us unable to do any good."

supported the motion, and contended, that if encouragement was given to the importation of corn, the manufactures of this country would be taken in return. This would introduce a better rate of wages, and consequently lessen, if not altogether remove, the distresses of the manufacturers. He perfectly concurred with the noble member for Yorkshire, in thinking, that our taking the corn of America, even at a reasonable duty, would induce them to take our manufactures in return.

thought the president of the Board of Trade was not justified in saying, that the present Corn-bill worked well. Our present system was the most injurious that could be devised. It injured the manufacturer, and the agriculturist. But while he entertained this opinion, he could not concur in his hon. friend's motion. It was impossible that a fixed duty could be levied in this country during a year of scarcity. If we were to have another bad year, like the last, government could not carry such a law into execution. He did not think the period was arrived when we could establish a free trade in corn; nor was he aware of any method by which that free trade could be brought about. He would not give a vote which could be construed into a support of the present Corn-bill, and as he could not support his hon. friend's motion, he should abstain from giving any vote at all.

thought that much exaggeration had got abroad on this subject He had examined the prices of former periods, and found that the labourer was as well paid now as he was in the middle of the last century. Since then the price of labour and almost every thing had doubled, except wool and corn. The agricultural labourer lived as well now on nine shillings a week, as he did in the middle of the last century on the wages he then received. It could not be said, that the high price of corn discouraged our manufacturers, and prevented us from competing with foreigners. At that moment the spinners of Manchester were standing out against a reduction of wages, when they were earning from twenty-three to thirty-eight shillings a week. With the present high prices the farmers were in a state of great suffering; and they would not be relieved by the proposal of the hon. member.

said, he could not vote for the motion. He thought the time for bringing it forward improper, and the proposition itself wrong. If the motion were carried, and a fixed duty of 15s. were imposed, it would add much to the distress of the manufacturing districts. It should be recollected that the present law was passed only last session, and had not yet had a fair trial, as the last crop was very deficient. The consequence of that had been foreseen; and no corn had been taken out of bond until the price had risen so high that only a small sum was paid for duty. The effect of the law, therefore, was equivalent to settling the import price at 72s. the quarter. He had always been opposed to a fixed duty, and he agreed with the hon. member for Bridge-north, that such a duty could not be levied in a year of scarcity. Its effect, therefore, would be, to delude the farmer with a protection which he was sure not to receive. The regulated scale of duties was benefi- cial to the manufacturer when prices were high; and when they were low, it was beneficial to the farmer. Much had been said about the importance of foreign trade, and he did not deny that it was necessary to our greatness; but he was satisfied that our home trade was of still more importance. Much of the distress of the manufacturer was, he believed, caused by the short crop of last year; the consequence of which was, that the agriculturists had spent some millions less than they would have spent; and it was the want of this market which caused the distress of the manufacturer. He was decidedly of opinion that the present law ought to be tried for some time longer.

entirely concurred with the noble lord. He did not conceive that the present Corn-law was the best that could be framed; but the present was not a moment to let loose all the interests and passions which a meddling with the Corn-law would soon call into action. There could not be a more ill-timed motion. No measure could be more inexpedient than the fixed duty proposed by the hon. member. It would be complete delusion for the agriculturists; for it could not be levied. It was impossible to give the farmer a protection when prices were not high, and to levy a duty when prices were high. In addition to this fixed duty, the hon. member proposed a bounty on export. France was at present our competitor for corn in the foreign market; and a fixed duty of 15s. with a bounty on export of 15s. would give to that country an advantage over this of 30s. the quarter, in a season of scarcity. The thing was impossible.

replied. He contended, that those who had taken a part in the discussion, had not answered any of the facts which he had adduced. He utterly denied the conclusions at which the hon. member for Pontefract had arrived with regard to the increase in the price of labour compared with that of corn during the last half century. By a table which had been carefully drawn up, it appeared, that the average wages of the agricultural labourer between 1742 and 1760 was 6s. per week, while the price of corn ranged from 27s. to 30s.; whereas now the average price of corn had risen so high as 72s., while the wages of the labourer amounted on the average from 7s. to 9s. per week. He had never intended to establish a perma- nent fixed duty; but he proposed to commence with a certain duty, and to descend gradually to the establishment of a free trade in corn. His only object was, to engage his majesty's government to consider the operations of these laws; but he should press his motion to a division, in order that he might ascertain how few there were of his own opinion [a laugh].

The House divided: ayes 12; noes 154. Majority 142.

said, that the condition of the persons in the factories in Lancashire, both weaving and spinning, was superior to those in other employments. The combinations which had existed amongst artisans in that county, for the purpose of procuring an increase of wages, were set on foot, not by those who had low wages, but by those who had the highest.

said, it had been proved before a committee of the House, that the children in factories were severely worked; and that their appearance was so squalid, that they might be distinguished from other children in Sunday schools.

admitted, that the principal factories in Lancashire were extremely well managed; but there were smaller factories in the other parts in which abuses existed. By the existing law, magistrates who were proprietor of cotton mills were disqualified from acting; yet other magistrates were not empowered to visit their factories. He thought it might be desirable to enlarge the jurisdiction of magistrates in this respect.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

objected to the motion, on the ground of the absence of several members, who were interested in the question.

objected to the bill because its provisions related to the places around London, but did not touch London. He thought the whole system of police ought to be the same in as around London; and he did not agree to a project for taking the local authorities out of the hands of the persons now possessed of them, and placing them in the hands of the Secretary for the Home Department

said, that the anxiety and trouble he had suffered on account of this bill made him desirous of seeing the question decided. Towards the close of the last session the committee made a unanimous report, on which the present bill was founded. That report had been printed, and every body had full notice of what was intended to be done. The bill had been brought in the week after the Catholic Relief bill was passed; so that it had now been a sufficient time before the public. If the city of London had not been included, it was because the committee had reported, that the state of the nightly police there was much superior to that in Westminster. No less than seven or eight committees, from the year 1763 to the present day, had enforced the fitness of some measure of this kind, and it was, therefore, high time that it should be introduced. The increase of crime in London and Middlesex, as appeared by returns from the Old Bailey, further showed the necessity for it; as, between 1822 and 1828, the prisoners for trial at those sessions had increased from two thousand five hundred and thirty-nine to three thousand five hundred and sixteen in the year. He apprehended that the general feeling of the metropolis and its vicinity was in favour of this bill, in which he had come to the determination of fixing the maximum of contribution, in the different parishes, at 8d. in the pound sterling upon the annual value of property.

After a short conversation, the bill went through the committee.

said, he must oppose the passing of the bill. He had many objections to it. He understood there was a regulation by which the friends of sick people in the hospitals were only permitted to see them once a week, on Tuesday. So that a husband might inquire after his wife's health on one Tuesday and be told that she was getting well, and on the following Tuesday he might be told that she was dead and dissected.

said, he must oppose a bill, the leading principle of which was directed against one of the most amiable feelings of human nature. It was no prejudice, but a much better feeling, that induced the poor to prevent the bodies of their relatives from being dissected.

said, he had consented to the bill, because, though there were difficulties, he thought that much good would be effected by it. It was the poor who would be really benefited by the measure. The rich could always command good advice; while the poor had a strong interest in the general extension of anatomical science. To this consideration might be added, that such a measure as the present was necessary to put a stop to the various atrocities which the difficulty of obtaining dead bodies had given rise to. It was painful to allude to the recent Edinburgh murders; but he hardly dared to think that those were the only crimes that had sprung out of the system.

The bill was read a third time.