The Sun. — London, England, 1827-03-09 00:00:00

aneestors; and though we have given them, on this occasion, the balance of price, yet that can be easily altered at any time." If the landed interest ceded the balance of principle, they would give up all. But it was not true that the balance of price had been cast in favour of the landed interest. For every one shilling raised in the home market, the foreign merchant gained an advance of 3s. This was 300 per cent. ; yet it was said the balance of price was cast in favour of the landed interest. He trusted that the House would stand up firmly against all experiments of this kind, which, in his honour and conscience, he believed would ultimately level not only their 'Lordships, but the manufacturers and all other consumers of grain. Let them consider for a moment how trifling was the effect of any reduction in the price of grain. Suppose it was lowered or raised fourteen shillings a quarter. Many of their Lordship; with that benignity that characterised them, conde scended to look• sometimes into the affairs of their tenantry. They would know that a difference of 14s. higher or lower in the price of a quarter of wheat was a difference which would give i)rospe rity to a farmer, or reduce him to beggary. Did they wish to knoW what it would do for the manufacturer ? Fourteen shillings contained 336 halfpence, and as it was calculated that every indivi dual consumed a quarter of corn in the year, which consisted of 365 days, it followed that the gain or loss to each individual would be not quite at the rate of a halfpenny a day. He would appeal to any intelligent manufacturer, whether such a sum as this could be an object to him ? Nay, he would appeal to the whole range of operatives, whether they would risk the evils that must fall on the agriculturists for such a saving? Much better would it be for all to keep the home market in its former state, than endanger the welfare of the community for the sake of a halfpenny a day. The Noble Earl, in conclusion, said he trusted their Lordships would resolve to support those ancient laws under which the country had flourished. At any rate it was impossible for them to pronounce any opinion on the subject, until they had all the information before them relative to the price of foreign grain. He finally moved, " That a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the price at which foreign grain can be shipped from the ports where it is lying, the quantity on hand, and the price at which it can be imported into this country " Earl BATHURST repelled the insinuation thrown cut by the Noble Earl, that the plan now under their Lordships' consideration, had been improperly attributed by his Majesty's Ministers, to a Noble Earl who was now on a bed of sickness-- Their Lordships could not forget that his Noble Friend now un fortunately absent, had, before Christmas last, stated that a project had been formed, and he then gave notice of his intention to bring it forward himself. He gave this notice, and informed their Lordships that the plan was formed upon mature delibera tions ; and that, upon its merits, he would stake his political re putation. The Noble Earl opposite,. he was sure, must be sorry , to have made a charge which had no foundation. As to the ge neral question respecting the importation of grain from the north of Europe, he should postpone any observations until the results of the inquiries by the Committee should be laid before the House. The Noble Earl had stated that the principle of graduating duties was a new idea introduced for the first time into the legislation of the country ; and the Noble Earl added that in order to carry such a principle into effect, it was necessai y to be fully ac quainted with the price of grain in all the quarters from which ex portation was to take place. Now the Noble Earl must be aware that in the time of Charles 11. the principle of graduating duties was adopted. Up to 1655, there was no prohibition, but a pro hibitory duty, which duty was graduated according to the price of corn. But that scale was fixed without any preliminary exami nations into the stain of the price in other countries. In 1776, there was a scale of duty without being subject to previous in quiry. In the Bill of 1822, there was a scale of duties that when the price of grain amounted to 705., importation would take place at a duty of 175., and when it rose to 80s., the duty was to be 12s. duty. Here w. a scale of duty, therefore, and if it was necessary to know what was the price of foreign corn before this measure could have passed, it certainly could not have passed, for no such inquiry was ever entered upon. Now, ac cording to the Noble Earl, the duty should vary according to the country from which the grain was exported, and it should be, in different instances, 155., 175., &c. Now lie (Earl Bathurst) understood that the petitions of the landed interest had for their object the preservation of the existing law—namely, the law of 1822 ; for they uniformly said that they deprecated any alteration in the Corn Laws. Let the House only consider the nature of the protection this law afforded. According to this law, wheat, when it rose on the average to 805. at home, might be imported on paying a duty of 12s. ; and when it was 70s. at a duty of 17s. for three months. The House would observe that the price was taken on an average of three months; and thus it might happen that, for a Icing while, the price might be very high, in deed above the importation price, and if it fell a little lower after 4vards, the average of the three months might be kept below the importation price. This was a great evil. On the other hand, let the House consider the injury that might be sustained by the agriculturists in another way. Suppose the ports had been opened once, and that in consequence of a large importation of grain, the price should be reduced ere to 50s. The ports must remain open for the three months, whilst the duty on importa tion would continue the same. Now let the House see the effects of this system on the fanner. Suppose foreign corn was import ed at a price of 255. let 17s. duty be added to that, and this fo reign corn could be *chased in our markets at 425. Yet this was the Bill for Which the landed interest was praying a continu ance. The fact was, that the farmers had a distinct interest in doing away with the mode of taking the averages, as settled by the Bill of 1822. The Earl of ROSSLYN made a few observations respecting the duty of 17s. The Earl of LAUDERDALE, in explanation, denied having made any improper imputation respecting the eourse which Ministers thought proper to adopt, in attributing this measure to the Earl of Liverpool. He had, he owned, stateu some facts, and drew a contrast, leaving the House to draw its conclusions. If the Noble Earl drew the conclusions, he (Lord Lauderdale) surely was not to blame. " But," said the Noble Earl significantly, " if I hat• said any thing rashly in the heat of debate, I have only to print my weech, and leave out the objec tionable passage."—(A laugh from the Woolsack.) Lord REDESDALE contended, that the mea sure now in progress for altecing the law was impolitic. - - The Earl of ROSEBER RY was glad that the mo tion foi a Committee would not be objected to. Lord BEXLEY stated, that the observations of the Noble Earl (Lauderdale) had not been more unjust to his Noble Friend near him (Lord Bathurst), than they had been to all the Members of the Cabinet. The plan now under considera tion was fairly to be attributed to his Noble Friend, now unfor tunately absent. When the fit occasion arrived, he hoped to be able to show, first, that the measure was consistent with the prac tice of our ancestors ; and, secondly, that it was capable of afford in., to the landed interest a more secure and practical protection than the former measure. The question was then put and carried without a division. The Committee was then appointed. Adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 8. Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from Glas gow, praying for a free trade in Corn.—Laid on the table. Lord ENNISMORE presented a petition from Cork, against the importation of Foreign Flour.—Laid on the table. „Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition, signed by up ,,,, ar js of 12,000 Shoemakers of Westminster, praying for a free trade in Corn.—Laid on the table. Mr. Dysot; brought the Pontefract E.lectiot W. Fremantle 1 J. C. Herries Sir R. W. Vaughan Lord Rancliffe J. F. Luttrell up the reduced list of the Committee on 1, as follows: H. Willoughby H. Meynil Jos, Marriott H. J. Borthwick D. S. Dugdalg Sir L. Palk Lord C. S. Manners J. Lindsay Sir J. Graham W. Holmes General GAS dOYNE presented a petition from Liverpool, praying for such a reduction in the price of Corn as might make it au article of trade. The Hon. Member remarked, that not a county meeting bad been yet held to petition against any alteration in these laws.—Laid on the table. Also a petition, praying that their interests might be taken into consideration. Mr. Dyson brought up the following list on the Dover Elec tion A. G• Legge James Bradshaw W. E. Powel Sir J. W. Pollett G. R. Trevor Sir C. Cole W. A. Roberts W. Drake J. Wemyss Adam Hay J. H. Lowther Henry French Lord Garlies Sir A. Hope George Lamb Sir C. COLE presented three petitions from Gla morganshire, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Sir R. VIVIAN presented two petitions from Corn wall of a similar nature. Mr. G. DAWSON brought up Returns of the nnmber of persons confined in the Fleet for debt, and in Newgate for criminal offences. Mr. HUME complained of the manner in which these Returns was made out ? Why was there not an abstract showing the increase or decrease of crime? Mr. DAWSON said that there was some mistake, and he would, if possible, supply an abstract.—Laid on the table. Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from Croy don and Ashurat, in Surrey, against any alteration in the Corn Laws.—Laid on the table. Mr. COKE presented a petition from Norfolk, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from Wolverhampton, praying for an alteration in the Corn Laws. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE conceived, that if GO tlemen were opposed to the principle on which the Government were about to proceed, the best course would be to take their stand in the first instance. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER recommended Gentlemen to abstain from the present discussion, as a full opportunity would be aftOrded in a few minutes to enter on the general question. After a few words from Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL and Lord Cmyr, the petition was brought up. Mr. LITTLETON could not shrink from the avowal he had made. Lord G. CAVENDISH presented a petition from Derby, against the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir R. WILSON moved for Returns of the Sums of Money levied by County Rates in the county of Surrey, in the year 1826. Mr. V. STUART postponed until the 16th his motion relative to the appointment of a Magistrate in Waterford. Lord BECTIVE presented a petition from Meath against any alteration in the Corn Laws. . . Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented various petiti ons from Kent, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. GROSVENbit presented a petition from Chester, against the importation of foreign flour. Sir T:ACLANt) presented a petition from De von, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. CORN QUESTION. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order of the day for going into a Committee on the Corn Duty Bill. On the motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, Lord CLIVE regretted that it became necessary for him, through a sense of public duty, to dissent from the propo sition submitted by the Government. He had prepared a reso lution, embodying his sentiments on the subject, which, with per. mission of the House, he would take the liberty to read, although at variance with the usual practice—still it would secure him against misapprehension. The resolution was to this effect : " That it was necessary to give protection to the grower of Bri tish corn, against the importation of the produce of foreign corn, which was not liable to the same taxes, and which ought not to have a preference over Ireland and Canada." The question of duty be considered could be better arranged by the Government, than by any private individual. The critical situation in which the farmers were placed was this. The effect of the measure will not be to place on a fair competition with the foreign grower, but with the wealthy British capitalist, who can import corn when it suits his convenience, and having it ready in the warehouse, can overflow the country whenever he pleases.—(Hear, hear.)—He was desirous to draw the attention of the House to the situation in which the question stands in 1827. In 1815, there was a change made in the Corn Laws ; subsequent to this there was a change in the currency. In 1822, a second change was effected in the Corn Laws, mid an avowal was then made by an Illustrious statesman, now no more (Lord Londonderry) ; a regular stipula tion was made by that Noble Lord, that the currency should re main on the same footing until the expiration of the Bank Charter in 1833. And yet, in the beginning of the last year, the Govern ment made an alteration in the currency, the result of which affected the agricultural interests to a much greater extent than all the wild speculations of the last few years had deranged the affairs of ene commercial world. Soon after this, came the most ex traordinary harvest that had been experienced for many years —in which the produce of all grain was one-third less than usual, and fodder, and every thing necessary for the sup port of stock, was proportionably scarce. There were two untoward events—the first, the change in the currency ; next, the scarcity of the harvest. We now have the third period, when Government proposes to admit foreign corn on the payment of a duty greatly inadequate to the protection of the Bri tish growers. He had not any hesitation in saying, that penury and want among the farmers would be the result of these mea sures now proposed to Parliament if they should be adopted. He would conclude what he had to , say by reading a passage from o printed letter addressed to the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, and published at Devonport. The Noble Lord then read some paragraphs of the letter, to the effect that it should be the study of Government to encourage by all means the growing of corn in our own country sufficient for own consump tion, and not to be obliged to depend for our supplies on foreign countries. Our hopes on this latter resource in the cases of emer gency might be disappointed, and we might consequently be ex posed to all the horrors of scarcity. The Noble Lord said he fully adopted those sentiments of the writer. All he would ask for the agriculturists was protection, and not prohibition.—(Hear.) Sir E. KNATCHBULL could not avoid giving his opinion on these measures proposed to the House. His ad dress would be very short. He was never disposed to differ much from his Majesty's Government. Having always agreed with them, he was sorry to be opposed to them now. The Right Hon. Gentleman who proposed those measures to the House, told them that they emanated from the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment (Lord Liverpool). If the Right Honourable Gentleman did not tell them so, he, for 's own part, would entertain some doubts whether that Noble Lord concurred in the proposed measures. After passing a high eulogi um on the Earl of Liver pool, the Hon. Baronet proceeded to advert, as we understood him, to some petitions that were presented to the House. One of these petitions alleged that it wo uld be disgraceful to those who advocated free trade, if they did not extend those principles to the subject of the Corn Laws. Every Hon. Member admitted that by all former and existing laws protection was given to the agricultural classes. Then that was at once granting that protection was due to them.—(Hear.) Some of those measures proceeding from the doc trines of free trade were already injurious to the agriculturists, and among these were the measures of the Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Huskisson) respecting the importation of wool and timber. On these matters the agriculturists were not fairly treated. In opposition to these new doctrines, he would continue to hold the opinion, that dependence on the soil of our own coun try was one of the soundest principles.—(Hear, hear.)—When the question of the Corn Laws was discussed in the House of Lords in 1815, Lord Liverpool said that in certain cases the Le gislature ought not to interfere, but leave all sorts of industry free. Each nation could then purchase what they wanted from other na tions; and if all nations did so, he (Sir E. Knatchbull) would agree with the Noble Lord. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman then said, that the system of foreign sup ply would completely paralyze us under certain circumstances.— If the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) could give him (Sir E. Knatchhull) any security—(a laugh)—if the Right Hon. Gentleman could give him security that his experiments would answer—(hear, hear! and a laugh) —now, in coming to speak of the Corn Bill of 1822, he would not contend for a price of i wheat up to 80s. per quarter—(hear, hear!). In the present plan we were proceeding in a system of duties, and not of a prohibi tion. But this plan was defective—it did not give any thing about the price of corn in foreign ports—it did not take into con sideration the freight or other charges, nor whether British or fo reign ships should be employed.—So important an alteration as that now proposed, should not be adopted so precipitately as they were called upon to proceed. If this measure passed into a law, it would be the first step towards dispossessing those who now filled their various situations, and upheld their rank with so much advantage to the country, of the means by which they would be enabled to continue it. If they were to be made the sacrifice, he called upon those gentlemen whose interests were identified with his, to join him in opposing these resolutions. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER spoke to the following effect;--If, Sir, I appear 'to manifest any haste to address the House on this interesting and important ques tion, the peculiar situation in which I stand with respect to it, and the direct appeal which has been made to my opinion, by my Hon. Friend the Member for Kent, must plead my excuse. As it was I who proposed to this House in former times the measure by which this trade has hitherto been regulated, I feel it to be my. duty, I owe it to my colleagues, and to my own character, dis tinctly to declare, that I most cordially, and unequivocally, and with the greatest satisfaction, support the proposition which is now under our c onsideration.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Sir, I am not ashamed, I ought not to be ashamed, to admit that my present opinion upon this subject differs from my opinion at the period to which I have alluded. Whoever recollects and considers all the circumstances of the case, will not accuse me with inconsistency in the avowal. At that period my situation in the Government was extremely different from what it is now. I was not a responsible Minister; and what I did I did in the discharge of my official duty. At that period I said in this House that I proposed the , measure which I was recommending not merely as a choice be tween difficulties, but as a choke between evils. Having, with out experience, adopted that measure as the less evil, when I now, after experience, recommend and support a measure of another kind, I do not feel that I am at all liable to the charge of incon sistency. No man is fit to be a Minister of this country, who, on a question of expediency like this, is not open to that change of sentiment which greater experience and knowledge may produce. I repeat, therefore, that I support the present proposition most cordially and unequivocally; and I say this with the greater em phasis, because my Hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, in his va rious imputations respecting this and other proceedings of his Ma jesty's Government, appeared to point out my Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as the great author of those pro ceedings; as the individual on whom all the odium, as he considers it, of those proceedings ought to fall. Sir, I should be ashamed of myself, and I should be ashamed of any colleagues, if we were base enough to sacrifice my Right Hon. Friend to such a cla mour. On the contrary, we invite all the odium of those pro ceedings, if odium it be (I think it quite the reverse), to fall on our own heads in common with his. Sir, I beg leave to say, with respect to the principles of free trade, that phantom of terror to my Honourable Friend, the Member for Kent, which seems as great a bugbear to him as the Pope himself—(loud cheers and laughter)—if there be any one individual who is chargeable with their introduction, I am that individual. My Hon. Friend is quite inaccurate, when he says those principles were introduced kw° or three years ago by my Right Honourable Friend. On the contrary, they were introduced by myself. I preceded my Right Hon. Friend as President of the Board of Trade; and from the moment of the cessation of the war, every effort was made to bring the commercial policy of this country back to what it was, before the confusion and complicatiou which the long continuance of hostilities, and the various measures con sequent upon that continuance had introduced into it. In making these efforts, I embraced every opportunity of recommending and enforcing the principles which meet with the eensure of my Hon. Friend the Member for Kent. Sir, when 'my Hon. Friend re commends to us to follow the example of my Right Hon. 'Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his mode of introducing a reformation in the Criminal Law, and lauds my Right Hon. Friend as he deserves to be lauded, for the prudence which he has exhibited, he has no right to charge us with any abstinence from that prudence.--(Hear, hear.) The opinions of my Hon. Friend the Member for Kent, and the opinions of those both in and out of doors who think with my Hon. Friend on this subject, and who talk of the innovations of our commercial system, are founded on a gross misapprehension or a complete ignorance of what we have done, of the laws which we have altered, and of the commercial policy to which we have returned. I am ready to prove to demonstration that what my Honourable Friend calls innovation, and at which he seems to be terrified out of his senses, is in fact a calm, cautious, and deliberate attempt to bring , the commercial policy of the country back to.tbe state in which..it was before that ex traordinary revolution, which turned every. 'thing in the world topsy-turvy. I hope.therefore, Sir, that the, House will not be deterred by my Hon. Friend's apprehensions from ever consider ing the subject of the Corn Laws. I confess I never was more astonished than I was at what fell from my Noble Friend this evening upon the subject. Recollecting all that has passed re specting the Corn Laws since the year 1815, to me it. appeared most extraordinary and miraculous that any body should get up and say that he thought we ought not to enter into any discus sion at all about them ! My Noble Friend gave us his history of the Corn Bill of 1815. If the House will permit me, I will give my history of that measure. At that period corn was exceedingly low. It was clear that, as I always contended, the law of 1815 could never have the effect of raising the price of corn. It so happened, that the harvest of 1816 and the harvest of 1817 were bad ; the effect of which was to raise the price of corn, so as to bring the law of 1815 into operation. This produced a very considerable importation of foreign corn ; and being folldwed by a very productive harvest in 1818, the price of corn naturally fell with great rapidity. The agriculturists became greatly alarmed. They formed an Agricultural Parliament, at the head of which an individual, sometime ago deceased, Mr. Webb Hall, presided, and which sat in the neighbourhood of this House. This Agri cultural Parliament sent manifestoes all over the country, calling upon the agricultural interest to do—what ? To implore the House to make no alteration in the Corn Laws ? Directly the reverse. This House received above 500 petitions, all protesting strongly against the principle of this law of 1815, which we are now told by my Noble Friend and by my Hon. Friend we ought not to touch.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—After this, Sir, am Ito be the only person connected with this subject who is to be charged with inconsistency ? To proceed. In the year 1819, soon after the commencement of the Session, the Hon. Member for Wareham very properly, and for which I was much obliged to him, asked me if it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose any alteration in the Corn Laws ; it being, I imagine, supposed, by some persons, that the fire and fury of Mr. Webb Hall's pro ceedings would induce us to extend protection to agriculture beyond what could be contemplated On my opinion) by any sane mind. I replied, that his Majesty's Government had no such in tention. Next year, the Hon. Gentleman, who was then Mem ber for the County of surrey, proposed the appointment of a Committee, founded on the various petitions which had been. presented to us, complaining of the law of 1815. I objected to that proposition, on the ground that it was preposterous to' think of altering that law, on such grounds as those which were stated in the petitions. I was defeated. The Hon. Gentleman carried his motion, and a Committee was appointed. Subsequently, however, tlfe inquiries of the Committee were limited to the averages ; and the only result was, that some alteration took place with respect to the manner in which the averages were struck. In 1821 the agricultural interest was labouring under considerable distress ; and his Majesty's Go vernment thought it their duty to acquiesce in a proposition for inquiry. Accordingly a Committee was appointed, which sat for a great length of time, entered into a very extensive and de liberate investigation of the facts, and made a very elaborate, and, in my opinion, able Report to the House, in which the principles of the law of 1815 were condemned, although the Report stated that it was not desirable that, at that particular time, any alteration should be made in that law. Another Committee, in the succeeding year, although it recommended that no immediate alteration should be made in the system, yet adopted the opinion of the Committee of 1821, respecting the law of 1825. I suppose any Noble Friend and my Hon. Friend differed in opinion from those Committees, and there fore they are not bound by those Reports ; but I, who ac quiesced in those Reports, am not justly chargeable with incon sistency in my present conduct. Give me leave, Sir, to ask if nothing has been done since the year 1815 to pave the way for an alteration in the Corn Laws? Noble Friend talks of the currency. Why, Sir, the very fact of the improvement which has taken place in our currency is a decisive reason for reconsidering the Corn Laws. Nor have his Majesty's Go vernment neglected other means of enabling the agricultural interest to meet a change whenever it might arrive; for, from the year 1821 we have been gradually and steadily reducing the taxation of the country; and have reduced it by no less a sum than twelve millions. From the difficulties therefore under which the farmers laboured from heavy taxation they have, di rectly or indirectly, been in a great measure relieved. My Noble Friend however declares, that they have experienced no relief; and wonderful to say ! he recommends the re-imposition of the duty on wool ! Sir, if there ever was a point on which the whole country seem to be in absolute error, it is on this duty on wool. I have read a great many of the numerous petitions on the sub ject. They abound with sagacious remarks on what they term " the wisdom of our ancestors," in protecting the trade of this country in wool. Sir, it is difficult to say where the wisdom of our ancestors begins. The contemporaries of one period become the ancestors of another. In this case, however, our ancestors happen to be just eight years old.—(A laugh.)—This high duty on wool, which we are now called upon in respect to the wisdom of our ancestors to re-impose, was laid on in 1819, not for the protection of the wool-trade, but as a financial measure; with a distinct understanding that whenever circumstances would al low, it should be taken off. There's " the wisdom of our ances tors" for you !—(Cheers, and a laugh. )—Our , 4 ancestors" must by this time be fine well-grown babies.--(A laugh. )—My Hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, talks of the remission of the duty on timber. I will not trespass upon the time of the House on this subject; but if I wer e s itti ng at dinner with my lion. Friend, I should like to have a little conversation with him upon it. This high duty on timber was not imposed until 1809. It is a little older therefore than the duty on wool ; but not much. The purpose for which it was imposed was to give protection to the timber of our own Colonies. But so far from any intention having been entertained of making it a permanent duty, it was limited to the duration of the war. In 1822, this duty was diminished. How? By rash precipitation on the part of a Government full of all sorts of schemes and changes, and projects? No such thing. By a Committee, who, after much investigation, and after having examined a great mass of evidence, recomme nded the fearful an d wonderful alteration which appears to have so ala rme d the nerves of my Hon. Friend , the Member for Kent. Perhaps, Si r , I h ave discussed these topics at greater length than they deserved ; but it is exceedingly important to correct the mistaken views which are taken of them. My Noble Friend insisted throughout his speech on the necessity of giving protection to agriculture. Sir, we never disputed that necessity. Our measures are the best proof of our conviction of that necessity. We are acting on the principle that agriculture must be protected, for the benefit of the agriculturist, and full as much for the benefit of the consumer of agricultural produce. The only question is, if it he wiser to effect a prohibition of importation at a certain point by duty, or by positive law. , The Hon. and Learned Member for Winchelsea very clearly proved the other evening, that the ascending duty now proposed must at some point or other be tantamount to prohibi tion. The evil of the old system is this. If you absolutely pro hibit the importation of corn at a certain price, the consequence is, that it becomes the interest of all the great speculators when the ports are open to pour into the country all the corn they can scrape together in Europe; not with any reference to the immediate de mand, or the immediate market, but because the time of importa tion being limited, they are under the necessity of huddling it all in together. Surely, Sir, that is xncire.injurions to the landed interest than the plan we are at present proposing. We have no wish to injure the landed interest. I am sure that 1 can have no such wish. If it were not for the land, I and my con nexions should be nothing in this country. It is not likely, there fore, that I should cut my own throat. So far from weakening. I am confident that the proposed plan will have the effect of strengthening the landed interest. The• evils which we now, propose to guard against are the evils which the law guarded against before the measure of 1815. To hear some people talk of the measure of 1815, hugging it to their breasts like a dar ling, one would suppose that agriculture never prospered before its enactment. No man, however, who has attentively read the statistical history of this country can deny that agriculture made steady and progressive improvement from the Revolution to the time at which the Bill of 1815 passed; although just at that lat ter period it experienced a temporary pressure, which perhaps operated as a motive for the measure. Now, that we arc pre pared to revert to the laws by which Agriculture was gradually benefitted for a century, how can we with justice be called inno vators ? We are no innovators ; we are merely bringing back a system which has proved 'wholesome ; and from which I wish to God we had never departed—(bear, hear!).—Tet the House look at the immense mass of Petitions with which our table has been loaded during the last, ,and the present Sessions ; some of them calling for the aboliti* of the Corn Laws ; others intreat ing that they may not be tofiched; and the wisest of them praying that if we do touch those - laWs, we will keep in mind the real in terests of all parties. Under these circumstances, what would have been said of us if ; we had not come forward with some pro position ? Would it not have been attributed to us, that we were insensible to the agitation which the country was experiencing from one end of it to the other? In what we have done, we have merely done our duty. The plan which we propose is that which appears to us to reconcile, as far as they can be recon ciled, the interests of all parties, although we know perfectly well that we can never hope to satisfy the ultras on either side—(hear!) My Hon. Friend says, that we ought not to make any alteration in the Corn Laws at present, because we have not settled the question of the currency. Why I thought it was settled. Have I been in a dream on that subject? Do I merely fancy that my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment introduced a Bill in 1819 for the purpose of bringing back the currency to its former condition ? It is true that a tempo rary deviation from that Bill took place in 1822, a deviation which I for one greatly regret; but last year we applied a prac tical remedy to the evil of that deviation by accelerating the period at which country notes should cease to be issued. Really, Sir, I know not what we can do more with respect to the currency. I shrewdly suspect, however, that what is meant by settling the question of the currency, is making an alteration in the standard. That appears to be the object recommended in all the pamphlets which have been written on the subject; together with something of which I confess I can make neither head nor tail, but which is called "equitable adjustment." If that be the real object, if it be proposed as a preliminary to any change in the Corn Laws to alter the standard, I hope to God that such a proposition will never be listened to by this House, and I am quite sure that as long as his Majesty's present Government exists, such a proposi tion will never be successful. My Hon. Friend the Member for Kent, says that be wishes the Corn Laws tb be such as may pro duce something like a certainty of price. Why, Sir, that is our wish too. An absolute certainty of price is unattainable. In in ar ticle subject to the influence of the seasons as well as to the operation of capital, it would be preposterous to expect it. But the nearest approach to it that is attainable, our plan is calculated to attain. One of the main objects which we have in the proposed alteration of the law is to guard as much as possible against excessive fluc tuation of price. If our propoaition be adopted, foreign Corn will never be imported but form immediate profit. As the lapse of a week may so change the averages as materially to increase the duty, no extensive speculation will be entered into. It is said that the agricultural interest are much alarmed at this proposition; that it has overwhelmed them with dismay. I do not believe any such thing. I have received communications from various quar ters of the country; and so far are those communications from expressing any apprehemion co the subject, that they speak of the principle of our plan with unqualified approbation. For instance, there is a letter which has been printed and addressed to every Member of the House, containing the Resolutions of an Agricul tural Meeting recently held at Lewes, at which a Gentleman of the name of Elmer, a very intelligent man, and extremely con versant with agricultural matters, presided. This meeting de cidedly approve the principle of the proposed alteration (which they consider as an amendment of the existing law) although they suggest some modification of the duties. That is one proof that no such alarm exists as that which has been described. The reverse I believe to be the case ; and I am convinced that the more people reason on the subject and draw their conclusions from fact, the more they will feel satisfied with what we propose. I know well when any alteration of the principle of any law is proposed, that it is very natural for individuals to take the alarm. In the course of my official life, I have had occasion to propose many alterations in the law ; and I do not remember a single instance of that kind in which I have not received a multitude of sad anticipa tions and doleful assurances of the ruin that the change would inflict on such or such an interest ; nor, Sir, do I remember a single instance in which those miserable predictions were veri fied by the event—(Hear, hear.) —I cannot afford a better ex ample of the way in which uninformed and short-sighted persons apprehend the most injurious consequences from measures which have proved wholly innocuous, than in the proposition for allow ing the importation into this country of corn from Canada. That proposition was founded on the soundest principles. Besides that in recognizing his Majesty's distant subjects as brethren, we did an act of justice, and cemented the union between our Colo nies and ourselves, there were considerations of political expe diency of the highest importance, which rendered the measure most desirable. We were told, however, that it would cause this country to be deluged with corn, not only from Canada, but from the United States. The Bill was opposed in this House on that ground—a ground which I and others, however, successfully combated. But when the Bill got to another place, there terror took its stand. So frightened were those by whom it was taken into consideration, that overlooking all the reasons for its adoption arising from justice and expediency, they declared that it was a measure dreadful to contemplate, and refused to pass it into a law. At last they were induced to acquiesce in a modified measure. What was the result ? It turned eut That in the first year of the operation of the Bill, when of course that operation might be ex pected to be most active, the quantity of corn imported into this country from Canada was only between 60 or 70 thousand quar ters ; and in the next year it shrunk to 30 thousand quarters ; and this was the result of a measure which we were called dolts and children, unable to put two ideas together, or to reason from cause to effect, because we did not anticipate from it the ruin of agriculture.—(Hear, hear, hear.)--I declare to God, that I par ticipate in none of the fears of my Noble and my Hon. Friends on the present occasion. On the contrary, I think that the c ourse which they have adopted is a course calculated to produce great prejudice and great evil to that interest, in behalf of w hich, and in behalf of all the other interests in the Empire I here stand, and am ready, if necessary, to relinquish my character for c onsistency, in order to promote their good.—(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear.) the objects Government for w h h i c a n d Sir E. KNATCHBULL ex pl a i ne d. Mr. C. WESTERN s a id, that the measure now brought f orwar d by Mi n i s t ers , was directly contrary to the opinions expressed by th e l a t e Lord Londonderry , in p ro posing the Corn tßegulations u introduced, ,IhBa2d2 fully. The accomplished measures which l c h h e all they were intended. The Earl of Liverpool had stated, that one of the principal objects which Ministers had then in view was, to and ther e by increase of corn advanced, and in Februar y , 1825, the Ministers had itincrease publicly crpe ari ee etthe ofecorn.va lacknowledged In f th teh circulatingt h e e yea p r r s o slpBe2r medium,i3t Y 1 oBf24,theand 1825, the price country to have greatly increased. At that moment the price of wheat was from 655. to 68s. a quarter, and now the great object of Government was, to prevent its rise even to 60s. This difference may have been greatly produced by tampering with the currency. But what a state of uncertainty and of mischief was created by these fluctuations, when Government, within the space of so short a can declare that the p r i ce o f corn a t 655., was im provingpenod . the country, and now assert, that it is absolutely necessary to keep the price down to fifty-five shillings.— There was no adequate change of circumstances in the condition of the country to justify their departure from their former prin ciples and declarations. It had been said' that great fluctua tions in the price of corn had occurred since 1815. This might be true ; but at the same time much greater fluctuations of price had taken place in every other country in Europe, except France, where the restrictive law was more operative than in this country. The extremes of fluctuation in England, since the year 1817, had been from 928. to 435. In 1817 the price of corn at Berlin was 655., and after 1824, it varied from 655. to 245. At Warsaw and Prague the extremes of price from 1817 were, from 51s. to 13s. At Cracow, 575. to 13s. sd. At Dantzig, from 90s. to 225. ; Vienna, 112 s. to 178. ; Munich, 120 s. to 258. ; Hamburgh, 818. 9d. to 218. In France the price had fluctuated from Bs. 4d. the bushel to 4s. 3d. In every country from which there had been any accurate returns, the fluctuations had exceeded those of England. How could this be attributed to the Corn Laws of 1815 ? He therefore should sup port the preventive system, upon the grounds of political expe diency, or even necessity—he meant the necessity of maintaining the country independent of foreign nations. The national pros perity depended upon the continuance of the prohibitory system. To alter that system, would be to enable foreign nations to starve the English manufacturers, and thereby impose what terms they pleased upon the country. England at present received great quantities of corn from Ireland, the measure before the House would deprive the Irish of the English markets, and increase the evils of the former country. Sir T. GOOCH said, that looking at the piles of petitions from the many hundred thousand manufacturers suffer ing wader extreme distress, the Government would not have done its duty if it had not brought forward the present measure. In 1821, when the table of the House was groaning under the weight of petitions from the agricultural interests, no man grumbled more than he did at. their not receiving proper attention from Mi nisters. The manufacturers had been taught to believe that their distresses arose from the Corn Laws, and Ministers were placed in a difficult situation. These distresses had never, in his opi nion, arisen from any thing of the sort. Every market was over stocked with manufactured goods; a child of ten years of age could now do what an adult could formerly achieve with his in ferior machinery. This was the reason why the manufacturers were thrown out of employment, and were in distress. Unless a new market could be found for our goods, the manufac turers must continue to starve. The Corn Laws would not give the agriculturist that protection which the other classes imagine. The anre way to produce famine in the country, was to depress the agricultural interests. He would confess that there was a very great difference of opinion amongst his agricultural constituents as to the present measure. Many of them had declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the present measure. He would beg the House to consider that the system of introducing foreign corn would have the effect of sending gold out of the country. He had known many ships to bring corn to England to return in ballast. In the Committee he should propose a higher duty upon the inferior sorts of corn. He should also propose a higher pivot than 60s. He thought it ought to be 645. Mr. WARD did not agree with a single opinion of the Noble Lord (Clive), who had opposed going into the Corn.. mittee. The Noble Lord had thought that in twenty-two months the present measures would have an effect in altering the currency. He (Mr. W.) thought, that if experience of the past was worth any thing, the country was likely to have a much better currency than formerly. He thought the measure adapted to the circum.. stances of the country. The principles of free trade were objected to upon very erroneous grounds. They had been totally mistaken by the Member for Kent, and yet a child might understand them if he were so minded. Those principles had unfortunately been departed from by accident, or various causes; but now that the House had succeeded in establishing them, he trusted in God that they would not again be violated. The Citizens of London had not expected a total abolition of th,3 old system of restricted trade ; they.prayed for only an abatement of the old rigorous law. The law at present proposed showed that Ministers had deemed their wishes not to be very erroneous. He trusted that the existing jealousy would give place to the utmost concord and sympathy be tween the two great interests of this affluent nation. Mr. PEEL must say, that if any blame attached to the Administration for precipitating the present measure with re spect to the Corn Laws, he was prepared to take his full share of that blame.—(Hear, hear.)—Because that measure had his full concurrence, and if illness or any other circumstance - had inter fered to prevent his Right Hon. Colleague, the Secretary for Fo reign Affairs, from bringing it forward, he (Mr. Secretary Peel) would himself have most readily done so, not in the dry discharge of an official duty, but because the measure itself had, in all its de tails, his most cordial support.—(Hear, hear.)—He felt it right to say this, as well in the fair expression of his own opinion, as in justice to his Right Honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson) than whom no Gentleman had been more hardly dealt with by certain Hon. Members of that House,—(loud cries of hear, hear from all parts of the Heuse)— and be felt pleasure in expressing a hope that his Right Hon. Friend would shortly be in his place, and have an'app9rtanity of removing those misrepresentations and misapprehensions whick. had taken place in his absence.—(Cries of Hear, hear. ).-:-He ap prehended that they were not then discussing the details, but the principle of the measure submitted by his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) ; and he confessed that the arguments urged by some Hon. Members against that principle appeared to him to make di rectly the other way.—(Hear.)--The Hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Gooch) bad urged the change which had taken place in our currency as one argument against this measure; while be (Mr. P.) on the other hand, contended that that alteration rendered the proposed measure the more necessary. Again, the Hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Western) recommended the adoption of the laws of 1815 and 1822, and advised their adherence to the restrictive price of 80s. ! Was this, he would ask, consistent with the Hon. Mem. tier's different valuations of money, which had taken place since the adoption of the measures which he had the honour to introduce in 1819 ? or did any man think that the resolutions of 1822 could be adhered to? The 80s. of the former period, alluded to by the Hon. Member, was different from the 80s. of the present day. There was not in that House any man more attached to the agri cultural interests than himself ; and he felt that, in the recent distresses that had come upon the manufacturing districts, they (the agriculturists) had shown the most earnest desire to alleviate that distress.---(Hear, hear.)—lf an instance of this was re quired, they had it in the fact that, shortly after his Majesty's Letter to the Bishops, not less than one hundred thousand pounds had been collected, at Sermons, on Sundays, chiefly from agricul turists.—(Hear, hear.)—Did the House or the country require more than this to show that there existed no hostile feeling be tween the agriculturists and manufacturers 2—(Hear, hear.) — With respect to the currency, he must say that nothing would more endanger its stability than the course proposed to be adopted by Hon. Members opposed to tke present resolutions.—(Hear, hear. ).—Adverting to what had been said with respect to the effect which the proposed alterations would have on c ultivation and pro duction, the Right Hon. Gentleman observed, that since he cu m , into the House, he had put into his hands an account of the comparative number of Inclosure Bills passed from the Rs volution down to 1707, a period of entire restriction ; and also flw quantitiesuon likely t o b e cause d i n home imported f rom a b road, they would ' when they add e d t o thi s i ncreased fluctuation similar account from 1771 to 11315 (both years inclusi ve ), an d they were, during the former period , 619, and during the latter trifling N 2852.—(Hear,s0rce p oefrproductionei perceive e t hear.) — Now, e e a r t r.)—hieng prices. Let Hon. Members look at the effect which the intro duction of Irish produce had upon our markets here. There, labour was cheaper, the soil fertile, and yet the opening of the English markets to Irish produce produced no sensible effect upon our prices in this country.—(Hear, bear.)—The effect of this measure would be to equalize prices, and any material alteration, unless such as might be produced by bad harvest, or other un avoidable circumstances,—(hear, hear)—prices would, in all pro bability, oscillate between 555. and 655. ; and therefore lie con.. sidered this measure a great boon offered to the agricultui ists.— (Hear, bear.)---It would prevent the recurrence of that enormous evil, occasioned by having three millions of corn poured in upon the country, owing to the sudden rise in the price of that article. —(Hear, hear. )—Under these circumstarces he hoped and trusted his Noble Friend (Lord Clive) would not press his Amendment, but allow the House to go into a Committee. He hoped, too, that his Hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Gooch) would agree to withdraw his opposition upon the same gronnds.—(Hear.) Lord CLIVE and Sir R, Heron rose at the same time, but Sir R. Heron gave way, and Lord CLIVE proceeded. Much noise at this period prevailed in the House, and we could only understand his Lordship to say, that he was ready to withdraw his amendment, if Hon. Gentlemen opposite felt inclined to withdraw their sup port of it. - Sir R. HERON said a few words, which ',fere 41- audible in the gallery. Sir T. LETHBRIDUE did not think, the gra duated scale of restriction proposed by th e Ri g ht Hon. Gentle man, would do, and objected not so much to the protecting price of sixty shillings, as to the mode and machinery a dopted for the purpose of carrying it into effect. He was sure that when they went into a Committee, they would find that 645. would be the lowest protecting price for wheat, and 245. for oats. Ihe Hon. Baronet expressed a determination to move an Amendment to that effect. Sir J. NEWPORT rose to protest against the course pointed out by the Hon. Baronet. After a few words from Mr. CHAPLIN, who spoke from under the Gallery, Lord CLIVE withdrew his Amendment ; anti the