The Sun. — London, England, 1829-05-20 00:00:00

Member refused to take the oath of King William, which was an oath that the House could not possi bly dispense with, and the others contained such trtarked distinctions that it was impossible t o argue on them in any way analagous to the present. With respect to the question which would have to be debated on Thursday night, he be lieved that the real question would be whether a new writ would be issued to return a new Member for Clare, or whether a new Bill should be brought in to enable the Honourable Member for Clare to take his seat on the same terms as the Earl of Surrey--( Hear,)—that was the question which they would have to discuss, whether they should place the Hon. Member for Clare on a footing with his Majesty's other Roman Catholic subjects. Mr. PEEL thought that if it were intended to adjourn the question, it would be better not to dis- CLI.s it at present.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BROUGHAM was exactly of his Right Honourable Fiiend's opinion. He trusted, how erer, that his Honourable Friend would reconsider the intention he had expressed of introducing a Bill similar to the Catholic Relief Bill, but confined to an individual. (Hear.) He hoped that he would re-consider it on the score of conveniency, if on no other. He would not say that he would not oppose, he would pledge himself to no course, but he depended nn the discretion of the Hon. Member, after he had re-considered the question. (Hear, hear.), Mr. S. RICE replied, that any suggestion from the Hon. and Learned Member would be considered with great attention on his part, particularly on the 141thject of the difficulties to which he had alluded. General GASCOYNE said he did not rise to prolong the diselission.—(Great laughter.)—He had no objection to altering the form of the notice, but he now begged most earnestly to state that on Thursday next he would bring in a Bill to repeal the: Catholic Relief Bill, and also the Bill for the Di,f,ram hisement of the Forty-shilling Free liolders.—(Loud laughter.) The amendment for the adjournment of the de bate was then put and agreed to. Mr. DEN: SON presented a petition from William Cobl'iett, thanking the House for returning to a me tallic currency, and praying that the taxes might be reduced to the amount at which they were before 'small paper was made the coin of the country.—To be printed. Sir J. MACINTOSH postpone, I his motion on the relations of this country with Portugal to Thurs day se'nnight. LAW COMMISSION. . --- Mr. W. PEEL moved that an address be pre sented for the report of the Commissioners ap pointed to inquire into the lax of real property, to gether with the appendix to the report.—Ordered. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from certain freemen of Canterbury, resident in London, in favour of the Bill before the House, to vacate the seats of Members accepting offices in India. The persons who signed the petition had voted in favour of Mr. Lushington. Mr. C. FEKGCS SON objected to that part of the Bill which made any persons who accepted office under the Indian Government incapable of being re-elected. Mr. BARING said, that individuals who accepted offices under the Crown in this country, were, if re elected,-nor prevented from attending to the duties as Members of Parliament, but persons who went to reside in India could not, so long as they livei in that country, represent their constituents in this country, and that was the reason he proposed in the Rill before the House, to enact that such Members of that House as accepted offices in India should not only vacate their seats, but be rendered incapable of being re-elected. Mr. BRIGHT trusted the Bill would pass the House without alteration. Lord J. RUSSELL thought - it ought to be left to the constituent body whether they would re-elect any Member who might go out to India, and hoped the Honourable Member for CslliMgton would so far alter his Bill all to give the conitituent body that choke. Mr. C. FERGUS*,ON objected to the 13111, because it made one law for persons accepting offices 'ender the Indian Government, and a different one for persons accepting offices under the Cronin ill' this country. _ Mr. BARING stated that the law ought to diffeient for the two cases, becauie the two co were them:eives different. Mr. PEEL presented a petit.on from cer friendly Societiei in Scotland against the Friel Societies' Bill. He also presented certai— relative to the slave trade. Mr. MARSHALL presented a petitit Sheffield, a.minst the Labourers Wages Dili. Mr. STURGES BOURNE presented a peti tion from Ashburton, in Devonshire, praying the re peal of duties on coal and culm. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented three petitions against the Sub-letting Act, and two against the Vestry Act, front places in Ireland. Mr. W. WrIITMORE presented two petitions against the Corn Laws from an anti-bread tax society, and from certain inhabitants of Kidderminster; also a petition from the Merchant's Company, Leith, praying for an inquiry into the state of the trade with India. Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the Merchants of Kingston-upon-Hull, praying for an equalization of the duty on East and West India sugar. Mr. V. FITZGERALD intimated that with re spect to the question relating to the equalization of the duties on West anl East India Sugars, he thought the House would not expect him to notice that, inasmuch as there was a distinct motion coming before the House to-night on the subject, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee o❑ the sugar duties. Mr. P. THOMSON called the Right Hon. Gen tlernan's attention to the duty on hemp, which amounted to between 80,0001. and 90,01)01. The rate of freightage, as compared with last year, had considerably increased. Mr. II UME presented three petitions, one from the town of Nottingham, and the other from pa rishes in Gloucestershire, praying for the repeal of the corn laws. Mr. P. THONISON presented two petitions of a similar nature from parishes in Gloucestershire. SIERRA LEONE. Mr. WORTLEY commenced by observing, dirt in 1825 a Commission had been appointed to ascer tain the state and prospects of the colony of Sierra Leone. That commission proceeded to its destina tion, and entered into a full investigation of every thing connected with the colony. The result of the labours of that commission was a report which he was sure must be fresh in the recollection of every Member who read it, and which contained a frightful representation of the condition of the colony. It was now about 40 years since we originally commenced by settlement the colony of Sierra Leone, for pur poses ditlerent from those to which it was now ap pliA. About 20 years since it was applied to the latter purposes. With respect to the original pur poses of the colony, it was found that though some of the settlers brought from Nova Scotia and Bar badoes were capable of assuming the highest func tions 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 la bouring under sickness and disease. There was no proper accommodation for them after they did ar rive. No attention was bestowed upon the cure of their maladies, and there was no system of regula tion to induce habits of industry, which was the most important point of all. He was sorry to say also, that there was no provision for the religious instruction of the negroes, so that they coutinued almost in the same state as when they were landed from the vessels,—namely, a state of barbarism and idleness. He could quote from the report of the C.,:maession i ers facts of the most striking nature to illtalttate his statement, but, las would mention only one. The report stated, that in order to apply in struction to 2,111 youths who were scattered over the settlement, there were only 22 schools and six teachers, with four native assistants. Another point for grave and serious consideration, which was the subject of strong representation by the Commissioners, he felt himself hardly at liberty to dwell upon, because it was connected with a subject at present under negotiation with foreign powers,—he meant the joint commis sion respecting the slave trade. Here we under stood the Honourable Member to say, that the slave trade had been repressed on one part of the African coast, but that it raged with undimi nished violence in another part. Sierra Leone was at so considerable a distance from the present scene of the slave trade, that the vessels captured for being engaged in the illicit traffic, had to pass in seven years, an average of 260 days under a tropical sun, and to traverse an average distance of 790 miles. The consequence was, that before the vessels arrived at Sierra Leone, one half of the liberated slaves died on board. The other half were in such a state of disease, that a considerable portion of them died before adjudication, and those who survived were untit 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 pe riod had now arrived when it was necessary to t a k e the whole subject into serious consideration. It was the opinion of many persons that the establish ment at Sierra Leone should be wholly abandoned, whilst others thought that it ought to be maintained at any cost. He would go so far as to state, that if it were possible by any means whatever to im prove the settlement and render it efficient, he should wish it to be maintained. The Hon. Mem ber then moved for various extracts from the cor respondence of the Colonial Government respecting the treatment of liberated slaves on their arrival at the colorsy ; also respecting militia corps in the colony; also for returns of the number of vessels employed on the western coast of Africa since 1815, with the number of deaths that occurred in each, nod how occasioned, &c. Mr. W. SMITH said, that if the Hon. Member had seen the papers for which he moved, he might perhaps have spared some of the observations which he had made. Sir G. MURRAY said, that it appeered to him extremely proper that a full investigation should take place as to these settlements, and all circumstances connected with them. The colony was chiefly esta blished with the view of introducing, nut only civili zation, but all the habits of trade and cultivation in those districts. It was n fit object of inquiry, whether the want of success hitherto imputed to those esta blishments was derived from peculiar circumstances connected with the locillities of the settlement, or whether the blame of failure rested any where else. He was of opinion, that if any part of the blame rested with the Government, the Government should have its full share of it. Peculiar misfortunes had attended these colonies.. Many men distinguished by their ability, zeal, and good intentions, had suc cessively been sent out to administer the Govern ment there, and, unfortunately for the public service, all those men (with the exception of Sir Charles Niacin.' by, who received death from the hand of the enemy) fell victims-to the climate. The Hon. Mem ber had alluded to the disadvantagesresulting from the position of Sierra Leone, with respect to liberated Africans rescued from the vessel; carrying on the slave trade. The Hon. Member had correctly stated the great disadvantages resulting from the length of the voyage the ships had to pursue after capture, the effect of which was that sickness was found to prevail, after landing the unfortunate victims of the cupidity of the slave trader. It was fitting that all those disadvantages should be obviated it possible; and, as the means of dig so, it had been proposed to establish the mixed — commission at Fernando Po instead •dSleria Leone. The former place was certaiAlf,nvyanlyAsarer.- the spot where the chief captaret . .**Oriade,. but - it would place the commission ifi - a situation Where - they would have a better proaect of common eating with the igto.;jor of Afri so to ieivt ucinQ by that means latfion at the of embers of u of religious sally, was t body for ishes Corn a on this subjec6 he object was to have d r .cn. In stating this, he meant that the be gradually effected by the gradual removal of those restrictions which had grown up with this vicious system, and which had failed to answer the purposes for which they were intended. The Hon. Member then ad verted to what had been said a few days ago on the subject of free trade—that we had a very large por tion 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 deserv ing strict investigation. Could any thing, he asked, be more important 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 in every way. He was not bound to point how far that situation had been pro duced by the effect of taxation—to what extent the changes in our currency might have caused it, or how far it was ow:rig to the Corn Laws. The fairest way, he thought, was to attribute it to the operation of the three causes together. The lion. 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 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 manufac tures, we could not now throw them. back for sup port on the other classes of the community ; our duty the*efore was to adopt such measures as, by again opening a demand for our productions, would give them the means of supporting themselves. To see the effect of the change that had been made in l our system, he would curry the attention of members back to the half century preceding 1765. During that period England was a corn exporting country, and on the average of those years sent forth annually , about 215,000 quarters, thus coming into compe tition with the corn of Poland in Holland, and often underselling that of Dantzic in the foreign market. ' The average export from Dantzic in the same time did not exceed 83,000 quarters annually. From the great increase in our manufactures, it became neces sary to import corn to feed our artisans, and in re turn we sent out the produce of their labour. Now it was clear that anj 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 1793, and from that period, with very little interval, till 1815, virtually a free trade in corn ; but at the latter period the decrease in the manufactures commenced, and m the same degree the improvement of the agricultural interest rulvarteed. The lion. Member here entered into ,wveral calculatioal to show, that while the trade in corn was free, we were an exporting country ; and that in those periods when the greatest tempta tions existed to the foreign grower by the high prices which sometimes existed here, such as 100 s. the quarter, and sometimes 110 s. and 1205., the quantity of corn imported bore no proportion to that ex ported. Taking 20 years from 1796 to 1815 in clusive, our whole export of corn amounted to 9,622,000 quarters, and the import in the same period was not more than 481,135 quarters. If, then, we had any fears of the excess of foreign im port, 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.—(Hear.)—He un derstood what was meant by that cry of " hear," 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 ex clude us from the trade of the continent, we received a large supply of corn. The facts he had men. tioned afforded a proof that we need have ea fear from an open trade in corn. The Hon. Member then went on to contend that the operation of the corn law was to limit the exertions of the manu facturer, 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 regretted that on this important part of the case he should have to address so thin an at tendance of Members, and that the Treasury bench was not graced with the presence of those whose duty it was to be there. [There were at this time (seven o'clock) not more than about forty Members present, and the only Minister we saw in his place was the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who sat almost alone on the Treasury bench.] He then went on to show, that what prevented the employ ment of the million of men, women, and children, for there were that many of the working classes now out of work,—was the present state of the corn 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 intro ducing the (to him) most important article of corn. It was said by one Hon. Member, that coin was sold in some parts in Europe at 255., while here it was 755. the quarter, and that the opening of the earn 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 he the oppression on the British manufacturer. —(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member then went into several statements of the price of creel in Dantzic, Biscay, Hamhurgh, Holland, and Bora deaux, 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 in the same periods, was small, and by no means calculated to excite any alarm in the minds of British agriculturists. He contended that if our system of corn laws were 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 for freight. He had shown that for 120 years the price of corn in Eng land and the price of corn 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 575. 3d. in England, and 375. 10d. in Holland, a difference which never existed till our own restrictive laws ereatedit. The consequence of our present system was, that the high price of Corn in this country caused our manufactures to ea ter every market in tl4e world under great disad vantages, 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, our machinery, our fuel, and our roads, advantages which counterbalanced the fearful odds which the disparity in the price of food produced against us. The country gentleman, who fancied that the de struction of that disparity of price would be injurious to his interests, was completely mistaken. The a r eieri g .f" the trade in corn would make the price of corn rise at Dantzic—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 he increased. He entered into a statement of considerable length to prove that the present monopoly of the landed intere-t 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 landholder had not de rived 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 pro ductive of his own ruin. A curious fact connected with this subject had been communicated to him. The Hon. Member for Leeds—(a laugh)—had told him, he had compiled and published a set of tables, which illustrated very forcibly the evils of a restric tive 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. Mem ber had proved that up to the year 1823, the price of corn in France was 635. Bd. After the intro duction of the restrictive system the price had fallen to 4-Is. 6d., a result which showed that the system of restriction, while it injured the manufacturer, did not benefit the agriculturist. In Sweden, for eine years before the introduction of the restrictive system, the price of corn was 275. For the six years which had elapsed since that time the average price of corn was 17s. Gd., being a re duction of nearly one-fifth from its former value. The Hon. Member than 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 diss pense. When the price of it was high, he worked for ten, twelve, or 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 pur chase 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 con sequences of this system were not, however, con fined to our manufacturers—they recoiled with fatal force upon our agriculturists. 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, we were assassinating our own commercial greatness, and leaving our population to all the evils of a curtailed supply. The present system of corn laws was also calculated to create very injurious derangements in the currency. It was tim e , 'he thought for nations to consider the propriety of making those mutual relations by which one country could exchange to another what was use less 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 ad mit the principle of fair reciprocity of exchange, then the products-of these countries would soon find the proper value common to both, and be alike useful, instead of being as at present comparatively useless —a change which would incalculably add to the na tional wealth and strength of a country situated like England. What did he propose as a substitute for the present evils ? He had no hesitation in saving a free-trade—not, however, suddenly; for, after long acquired habits of a certain kind, he knew that any alteration, to be ultimately e ff ect ua l, must not b e violent and extreme in i ts operation, but gradual and accommodated to' circumstances. The duty upon corn, according to the present Wan, varied, he -.be lieved, from 13s. to 15s. per quarter.—(The Ho Member was here informed that this day's duty wee about 13s.)—That was about what he thought. 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 lbs. per quarter Upon wheat, 10s. upon barley, and Ss. upon oats. This would be about the relative amount of their value. If they would allow him to go into a Committee, lie would then propose that from these rates there should be an annual re duction of ls., (for himself he should prefer it to be 2s. or 35.), and he relied not So much on the advan tage of this gradual reduction as upon the acknow ledgment of the principle that the ports were to be open, at a fixed rate for corn to the free trader, as well as in all other articles. Were this once enacted, the advantage, lie contended, would be much in favour of the agriculturist. To examine this point, he would call their attention to the manner in which the fixed duty would operate. 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 knows, 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 manufac tures for her share of the commodity. In this plan there would, he believed, be no fluctuation or alter nation of price, vibrating in the markets, and alarm ing the people. The more the markets (like indi viduals) 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 open ing 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 practised in the regulation of these averages.— He had then another proposition, which he hoped they would concur with him in thinking beneficial, and which lie 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, lie should be ready to give him a bounty on exportation, to enable him to meet his home calls. This would have the effect of levelling the prices pretty fairly throughout Europe. An in telligent farmer had once told him, that he was obliged to sell his corn to meet pressing exigencies at 355. a quarter, and before seed time came to buy it again at 55e. The Hon. Gentleman then pro ceeded, at considerable length, to refer to the re turns of the duty levied upon corn during the last nine years, and to contend that under a proper sys tem of regulation a revenue of 1,200,0001., instead of 256,0001., 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 con sumers. In his annual reduction of the duty upon corn, he said, he meant to proceed until the agricul turist was liable to no other tax than society at large. He complained that every article of food— ham, eggs, hay, &c.,—was subject to heavy taxa tion, and denied that it was the agriculturist alone who produced corn,—every artisan arid mechanic equally Produced it, by fabricating an article which was exchanged for the corn of foreign states. If the principle which he recommended was to be adopted, this land, so pregnant with the materials of productive industry, would flow with milk and honey.—(A laugh.)—A gentle man who had a farm a short distance from Man chester observed, that whenever trade was brisk at that place, every article belonging to his farm brought high prices, and added, that he could tell without any particular information on the subject, by the price which his bailiff obtained for the pro duce in the market, what was the state of trade in Manchester. He thought he was borne out by every proof and argument in the principle he had endea voured to establish, and that big principle, if adopted and followed up, wonld lend 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 benecessary for raising the revenue. Much as m e ought to attend to the home market,—and he admitted that was an impor tant consideration,—he would not neglect the fo reign 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 out of employment, we should cast the whole weight of 52,Q00,000/. of taxes (the amount now levied) on the home market. He mentioned 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, however, one objection which he wished to anticipate. It would be said— " This country is very heavily taxed, and there fore 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 ouly could we get free from the load which oppressed us. It was also said, " countries where there is cheap corn are very miserable." This was, because they had no manu factures, 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, plenty of sugar, plenty of coffee, plenty of cocoa, but the slaves got' none of them. The slaves in the West Indies were unable to con sume 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 them, and nothing else; the wheat and oats went in payment of rent to their landlords. Rear up a portion of Irishmen as manufacturers, and then they will be able to give their labour and ingenuity in exchange for a portion of the wheat arid oats. It was necessary to mention one other objection. Some persons say, " it is not fit that we should trade with other countries, if they will not trade with us on equal terms." They add—" unless a principle of reciprocity be acted on by them, it is proper to pro hibit the importation of foreign corn, so long as they refuse to take British articles." He denied this— admitted reciprocity was a good thing, and that 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 refuse to act thus, we should not on that account decline to accept such of her commodities as we could advantageously ac cept. We ought to take from France whatever we could get cheaper than elsewhere. Russia had put us under a ban as regarded recipro city, yet we good-naturedly took her hemp, tallow, Lc. Why did we do this? We did not send her any manufactured goods directly, and according to the argument referred to, the amount of her deal ings 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 (smuggled or not, it did not matter) ; our jackets went to Portugal : and thus we paid for Russian hemp and tallow as if our clothing and hard ware went direct to Russia in exchange for them. The means by which the operation 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 market we could, and thereby, and by multiplying our mar- kets and exchanges, to carry on as much trade as poeale. With respect to the position of the Lion. Alderman near the table, he denied that there could be such a thing as unproduction in this country ge nerally. He admitted there might be such a thing , in one single article, but it could riot exist in all. In his view of the case, what was called overproduc tion arose from inequality of production ; there was too much of one article made, that was all. For his parte he wished for a steam-engine of 100-power in every village to , manufacture bread and meat.—(A laugh.)—The object should bij to produce articles exchangeable for food in as great qeaetities as pos sible ; but we were not allowed a free market for food. It was the present state of the corn laws which occasioned what was known by the title of over-production. The producer is ready to exchange his goods for food; you will not let him have it ; if he cannot get it, he will have a superfluity of commodi ties ; so that it is Government that is to be blamed. 'We were all interested in this. If Government altered the corn laws, they would have the popula• Lion in a state of prosperity ; they would have every man employed; they would have the consumption of commodities greatly increased, and along with that an augmented revenue from taxation ; and thew would have the means of power and wealth to an al most unlimited extent placed in their haeds. it was the country gentlemen who ruled the House and the country—they made the laws ; they said, " Let us have a monopoly of the supply of corn to the manufacturers, &c. ;" they were the Lords in the House of Commons and in the other House of Par liament, and they had done this. Let us suppose the manufacturers of Sheffield, Manchester, &c. were masters here, and adopted the converse of this principle, how would the landowners like it ? But let no Government exclusively adopt or carry either principle too far. Let them not cramp us with this restrictive law or that, but place the whole commu nity in a situation, and confer on them a power, to do their best. The greatest state of freedom in volved the greatest state of prosperity. He was not one who thought that the public debt, heavy as it was, was of much consequence, so long as we could have such an extension of commerce as would render the whole world tributary to us, and assist in its payment. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, " That the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the corn laws [Act 9 George IV., c. 60,] with a view of sub stituting a fixed duty on the importation of foreign cern into the United Kingdom, and appointing a bounty on the export of British corn, instead of the present graduated scale of prices and duties." Mr. MARSHALL, jun. seconded the motion. Mr. V. FITZGERALD called the attention of the House to the fact of the Hon. Gent. at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the country, having felt himself justified—and no doubt his motives were of the purest kind—in calling upon the Legislature to adopt the inconveni ent course of retracing the steps it had taken last session, after the most deliberate and anxious con sideration, and to rescind a law before it had come into full operation, or received R fair trial, owing to circumstances which he should not advert to. From the Hon. Member's own statement, it would seem that the subject of the corn laws was so bound up with other questions that required more time for their consideration than Parliament could now be stow, as rendered it impossible to come to an im mediate decision upon it. The Hon. Member had most disengenuously treated the subject, and de scribed it and argued upon it as a question at issue between the country gentlemen and the manufac turers. No liberal-minded man could possibly have condescended to describe in terms so irritating u question of such grave importance. In fact lie had described the corn laws, modified even as they now were by a lute 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 invidi ous, because it was totally destitute of foundation.— An lion. Member behind him had just then 11461% and well ►aid, that to talk of the corn grown in th'e state of Venice would be no less absurd than to boast of the mignionette grown in London. In re ply 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 main• taining, that so far from the system being ineffica cious, and the predictions of last year being disap pointed, every promise that could be expected to be verified, by experience in the present state of trade and the manufacturing population, had been ahun dandy 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 fully satisfy the House as to the preference which was due to the system now in operation over its predecessors in similar circum stances. From the September of 1799, which was a year of deficiency in the wheat crop, to the next May, the price fluctuated from 745. to 115 s. a quar ter. In 1800, which also was a short crop, from 955. to 1545. In a year of similar deficiency of pro duce, 1810, from 85s. to 113 s. In 1828 and 1829, during the same period, and under the present sys tem, the fluctuation had been confined, despite of all the Hon. Member for Montrose bad said this even ing in disparagement of the system, to the scarcely perceivable difference between 58s. Bd. and 575. 7cl. The several fluctuations, therefore, ac cording to this statement, which he would vouch for was correct, 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.—(Hear.)—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 pro tecting duty of 20s. a quarter, 15s. he would have preferred ; but still more gladly would he have em braced the project to make it only 103. a quarter. In fact, he said he would havo preferred, even in the teeth of the late Mr. Ricardo's constant advice to the contrary,—preferred giving no protecting duty at all. The lion. 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 com mittee, 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 was it possible to conceive such a proposi tion could be combined with the idea of any fixed duty. To countervail all the disadvantages under which the agricultural interest would have to labour, 'he Hr Member proposed that a bounty should be trade, and had bectisse a stanch advocate of a . file4ll ,l; rate of duty on the food of the people.. S e inu h - 6 for consistency !He particularly Gaut. t he House not to disturb the present laws on this 1 " / • . ject, because it scarcely could be ,said their principa: had a fair chance of being tried; but as far as it had been tried, it had prevented that which was the grest evil of all—a fluctuation to any great exte nt in tbe price of this essential of life.—(Hear.) Mr. HEATHCOTE agreed with the Rig ht , H se Hon. Gent. at the head of the Board of Trades, th,: it would be eminently unwise to disturb the pririPw of the present corn laws. Lord MILTON agreed with the Right 14 4;1 Gent. 0 to the expediency of attempting to " : as nearly as rseible the price of corn in this country e There yet, however i remained a question of gre: c importance to be determirred,—namely, on Iri l d i basis was that permanency of price to be founde .. He entirely agreed with the Hon. Member f or Aber; . deen, that an approximation must be made sooner ° later to a free trade in corn ; otherwise the . ro'a r 't;, teetering pre-eminence of the country coul d riotl'i, maintained. The proposition of the Hon. Metti7 i e for Aberdeen, besides being sanctioned by the Po k n i ' ciples advocated in that House, and elsewhere '7l the late Mr. Ricardo, had the peculiar recosamef dation of not only not taking the sgriculturiets Itr surprise, but of giving them full time t 0 141 a their supply ; for though it ultimately p ropOe s. to fix the duty at 3s. per quarter, it beg, 4 at 151., and gradually descended. To a coliet7v so densri populated as Great Britain, it must be,e matter of serious consideration to provide a geing i : v possible evils of a Scarcity of corn, and this 001!, could be ensured by encouraging the importatiot!°, the grain of less populous and more fertile countrre, He was sure the more the subject was considere.% the more it would gain on public attention, a nd ta . more justifiable and rational would a ppear the P rce tioni A position of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. Mr. V. FITZGERALD explained. -... Mr. E. WODE HOUSE was opposed to the p. s i position of the lion. Member for Aberdeen, wh le " he considered to be founded on a gross delusion re' specting the advantage to the country of what "44 termed free trade. The Hon. Member for Abe r " deen dwelt much on what he ca lled the totem quences of our free trade in corn from 1791 1815 ; but he seemed to forget that 1796 and 1 7 ( were years of famine; that 1801 was also a Teer ° famine ; and that in that year the King o f Paola declared, that if our price of corn was high, em would his export duty be high ; and i f the P,Dri fe .lit e: were low, so would his duty be l ow. the Honourable Member also wished to i m p ress minds of the House and the public wit h hie e °la most erroneous views of the origin of the pre6;i, distresses in the manufacturing districts. Ace°. 5 ing to the Honourable Member, this distress 111 wholly owitsg to our vie:ous system of 'order.; by which foreign markets were closed agaie:st . manufactures, and the wages of labour thence se': sened. " Now," said Mr. Wodehouse, "in a neifeb to this delusion of the Hon. Member for Aber deer4 all I will say is this—let the Hon. Member leave thee , decision on the question to the distressed artisse themselves—to the weavers of Manchester, for er' ample, or to those of Norwich, if he preferred the latter, from holding property near them. I will Itiv° him his own time and place, and his own cha irtoa° ; I will tell the weavers of Norwich that Mr. Illethis coming down to explain to them his views 01 },- causes of their distressed condition. Le t. :, Honourable Member do so, and let me state ro ; u ' rl lo - and I will be crucified if I will not upset ~...- in the midst of those very distressed weavers. /'''' (Hear, and laughter.)—The distress of our tranive lecturers is not owing to the Corn Laws; the/. 1 0 , all the consequences of that piece of legislative 1/10‘ Nation Mr. Peel's currency tampering Bill d 18 ' d (Hear.)—This has put our feet in the stocks' an, rendered us unable to do any good, in fact, to o ° ' thing at all—but---(Laughter. Sir G. PHILIPS contend d that if a free til de in foreign corn were sanctioned by the Legislat,ufei the consequent increased demand for our 014311/1".; tures would so raise the wages of labour while l i lowered the price of bread, that it would put an V i e , " to the periodica Idistresses in the manufacturing tricts. Mr. W. WHITMORE was convinced that there could not possibly be a worse system than the Pre' sent system of corn laws. Mr. HOULDSWORTH contended against th e proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose. , Lord ALTHORP objected both to th e time at which this proposition was brought forwar d, and t° the proposition itself. Mr. HUSKISSON perfectly concurred w ith 110 Nolsle Lord in considering this proposition imPrw,r" ticable and ill-timed. The present system) he con.; ceived, was the best that could be adopt ed for tn circumstances of this country. It afforded protee: tion to the farmer when the price of corn wall lob; and it protected the manufacturer by a dmitting r 0 importation of foreign corn when the price of e° ; at home was high. It was quite impossible, ka li/I ,i, out of view the other objections to it, that the P e- pc tion of the Hoe. Member for Montrose could be be carried into effect. t , he Mr. HUME replied. lie contended that Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and the t e. di a , other Hon. Members who had taken part in t i _ lle l , be cussion, had not answered any of the facts lei ",7,,i. had adduced in support of his view of the 1w:t o , He utterly denied the conclusions at which the T r , Member for Pontefract (Mr. Houldsworth) ha." l'of rived with regard to the increase in the pncel,4e labour compared with that of corn during the P-to half century. By a table which had been put in t o his hands by the Hon. Member for Bedford, e rl I which was very carefully drawn up, it appeared °set the average wages of the agricultural leb° ll 6i , between the year 1712 and the year 1760 wa s ,/, per week, while the price of •corn ranged from bad to 305.; whereas now the average price of corn i'er risen so:high as 725., while the wages of the labotlie amounted on the average from Is. to 9s. weekly'. ~i had never intended' to establish a p er manent f 4e . t , duty, but ho proposed to commence with a ee rtji r duty, and to descend gradually to the establisholev of a free trade in corn. The Hon. Member C_l; chided by saying, that his only object was to en op his Majesty's Government to consider the operati--5 of these laws, but he should press his mo!ion t° 0 , division, in order that he might ascertain hot'! .! there were of his own epinion.—(A laugh. ) .10 The House then divided— For the Motion „Against it 15 4 ' Majority against the Motion , 14g 'AO the Hon. _ prop held out to it on the export.—[Mr. Hume—l did EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACT° I ‘ in 0 not call it a bounty, I called it a drawback.]—He Mr. HOBHOUSE moved for leave to bring would convict the Hon. Member of both. inaccuracy Bill to amend the several Acts relating to e , the to and forgetfulness, by reading the words of his own ployment of children in cotton and other facr°ri n motion, in which the word bounty was actually in Sir G. PHILIPS observed, that the condit'oe serted in his own hand-writing—(Hear, hear, and the persons in the factories in Lancashire, both w' eO . laughter)—and what was more remarkable was, that ing and spinning, was superior to those in other ho d the Hon. Member should have proposed a bounty ployments; and that the combinations whic h m g' which was both unpalateable to the public and inju- existed amongst artisans in that county for the r O O dicious in point of policy, because its possible pose of procuring an increase of wa ge s, were 6ebose effect might be to reader the supply of the foot , not by those who had l ow w a g es, but hi t people of this country still more precarious than who had the highest. tith e remind had been of late years. Again he begged to Mr. R. GORDON remarked, that it ha d t he remind the House from past experience, of the proved before a Committee of the House, th at bo ir impossibility of keeping up a fixed duty itt times of children in factories were severely worked; that st irs' high price of corn. No Minister, however bold in appearance was so squalid that they might be di other respects he might be, would dare to keep up guiehed from others in Sunday schools. ' ri ot or support a high bounty, even on the export of Mr. PEEL admitted that the principal fa ct° . b corn during a period of great distress and scarcity. in Lancashire were extremely well managed ihich The principle, if even a good one, must be sacrificed there were smaller factories in other parts, in t he to expediency. The opinion of a very high autho- it could not be den i ed that abu s e s e xisted • B I of rity on this subject, who had just published his existing law, magistrates who were proprievlbe thoughts, and anticipated in his pages the arguments cotton mills were disqualified from acting; ye t n ti e' of the Hon. Member , was , that neither 20s. nor Os. magistrates were not empowered to visit their to duty could be maintained; particularly if dearth tories. He thought it might po ss ib l y be desirabiect, should, as was usually the case, visit this country enlarge the jurisdiction of magistrates in this tegP i o, and France at the same time.—(Hear.)—lt re- After some observations from Mr. W. St, e te prove that this pro- Sir G. Pute's, and Mr. HoettousE, leave was Pi tt 0 j qt e ee i itr would o b u t l t d t little b eTmy experience chimerical, to Paten's, e ri c a were we to be re- Mr. DICKINSON obtained leave to bring t o duced to a state of extreme scarcity, and a famishing Bill to amend the Act of last Session, relatl4- population. The Hon. Member was, it was now the division of counties. Clear; a recreant from his favourite principle of free , Tho CHAC,ALLOIi of tho AXCOQ'