The Sun. — London, England, 1827-05-26 00:00:00

arse. They so continua open util . Artury 19. 'the harvest of 1918 was a fine and abundant isle, not only in the United Kingdom,but all over Europe. Yet on the very eve of that harvest by the simple fracion of twopence the ports were open, and the tountry glitted with foreign corn. This filled with the utmost dismay the very persons who felt most interested it pursuing the enactment of the law of 1819. 'they llagued in hostility to the principle as well as the details of tiat very bill Which we were now told was the very palladinta of their security. The utmost efforts were made by tkose who knew how to direct such efforts to unite into one focis all the discon tented feeling of the country, and to brag forward an ar ray of agriculturists generally, and this they did, through the mec?iumof Valiat I suppose I may esll an Agricultural Parl'emeent. which took its seat not fir from this House, end whisa a pronounced a direct, an ucttnimous, and une quivocal condemnation of the Bill.of 1615. It was directly 'alerted, that the bill was not calculated to promote the end in view, or produce the effects expected from it, that it' ought to be revised; and, at that time, in 1819, the Agricultural Parliament cond e mn e d l it by an unanimous and unequivocal Resolution.—{lfear,hear.)-4 do not con demn their conduct, I only mention a fact ; and the agri culturists then condemned the law of 1815, calling on Par liament to alter it, and forcing that ,question into discus sion which they now blame us for agitating. Now, when Governmets, following their opinions, proceed to revise that law, forth steps the whole agricaltural body, and lays a heavy blame on us, because we have found it our duty to submit a measure for this purpose to Parliament. When I remember the strong feeling excited at that time, I do not biztrac the agriculturists, I only state what their con duct 'was ; an4l the natural and necessary consequence of their proceeding, was to excite strong feelings in the other classes of the community ; other ptsties became active, and petitions were sent in from both. At the opening of the Session of Parliament of 1819, a strong belief prevail ed that Government then meant to take the subject into its consideration ; and from the situation I then filled, I was asked if the Government did mean to do CO, and I answer ed—No ; and no particular step was taken during that Ses sion. The agricultural Parliament, however, was not in active during the recess ; it continued its operations through 1819, 1820, and 1821, and by its influence a greater num-, her of petitions were got up than were ever before, I believe presented to Parliament. l a one Session there were no less than 1,200 petitio:4ll presented to the other House of Parliament, all c o ,:caplaining of the operation of the law of 1815, and :r e proving of the principle of such a measure as the Bill I have had the honour to introduce to your Lord. ships. 'Why then, your Lordships will say, that with this strong indication of the state of the public mind displayed at the lieginning of 1819, and displayed concerning a ques tior, which was before of great importance to the country, we, are not to blame, we do not wantonly agitate the ques tion, when we only introduce a measure which is to give practical effect to the prayer of 1,200 petitions. But in 1820 the agriculturists were anxious to procure an al teration of the law; this was the object of all the agri cultural proceedings of that time ; and they stated, they could not deny their conviction that the law of 1815 was most inefficacious. This was the object of all their recla anations, of all the petitions and proposals submitted to the other House of Parliament, if I may be here allowed to al lude to the pr oceedings of the other House of Parliament; but I do so historically, and in order to shew why the Go vernment has been compelled to submit the question of the Corn Laws to the Parliament. In 1820 a motion was made in the other House to appoint a Committee; and on what ground was such a motion supported ? Why on the ground that the nonserous petitions were sufficient evidence that the law of 1815 was not at all adapted to the differ ence which had taken place in prices. I, for one, ques tioned the policy of granting a Committee, but the Govern ment was defeated on that question, and the motion was carried. It is true that the object of the Committee was limited to an inquiry respecting the mode of taking the averages; but it is clear that it is not possible for that Committee, consistent with the views of the Agriculturists, to abstain from prosecuting their inquiries into the whole question, should it be renewed in 1821. In 1821 the proposition for appointing a Committee was renewed, and the Government found it impossible not to acquiesce, and to take the question into its own hands. The Government would not have done its duty, had it not per mitted the investigation ; and the consequence of that in verettatian was to recommend the adoption of a law on the principle of the present Bill, as contradistinguished from the law of 1815. The Committee of 1821 also made a Report which, I do not mean to discuss ; but that Report condemned, both by reasoning and facts—by a priori reasoning and facts discovered by experience—the law of 1815. There wan one clause introduced into that report, not consistent with the proposed alteration of the law; but it recom mended an alteration ot the principle of the law, and it is; in conformity with the principle of that report, that thei present measure is submitted to your Lordships. In 1822 the Committee was revived, and its d is cussions led to in troduce a reform into the law A practical measure re suited, which was a certain modification of the law of 1815 —but it was never then said that the law of 1815, with this modification, was to be the permanent system of our Corn laws, and that it wee never to be altered. It was contemplated by the Report that there should be a ge neral revision of the laws ; and tne measure suggested' by it was more a temporary modification than a change' in our policy. It is impossible, however, not to re-' collect, though the law of 1822 was passed, that the . country has been, in fact, under the law of 1815 ;-- 1 for, under the law of 1822, the ports have never been' opened, and since it was passed the price has never risen! to 80 shillings the quarter, and the law of 1822 has never come into effect. Nor do I know at what time it will come into operation, for it is indispensible, to bring it into; operation, that a pressure should exist equal to 80 shillings the quarter for Wheat during six weeks' time; and at four periods of the year. I see no reason to inflict such a price on the country—for such a price must be a great inflic-i tion—before the law can cdrne into operation. When the, third reading of that Bill of 1818 was proposed, a distill.: guisbed land-owner, a Member of the other House, a gent tleman of great practical experience, a man whose nana and character gave great weight to all he said, rose to speak on the third reading, and did he say that it was so sacre4 that it was never to be altered—that no time would evell come when it should be changed. No—he said he rose} to give it his parting malediction. If I wanted any author rity for condemning that measure, if I wanted any author rity to show that it was desirable to alter that law, I should not wish any higher authority than that of the Gen tleman I have alluded to.--(Hear.) Under these circum stances, cor-idering the nuinber of petitions from the Agris cultural iunrest—considering that there were as many pee talons from other parties---considering also, the circum4 stances and feelings of the country, Government found it was necessary to take the question into its own hands, and submit a measure to Parliament, for the purpose of re , vising these laws. Taking all these things into consii deration, it appears to me that we are only doing out duty—that we sneuld not have done our duty, had wi not proposed such a measure—mad fce this reproaches have been heaped upon us, and we have been accused, and pubi licly accused, of unnecessarily and wantonly tampering with this question. if these circumstances justified, or even coms penes', the Government to take the question into consie deration, have no other circumstances taken place in cons nection with the subject since 1815, which made the situai tion of the country, with regard to these laws, very diffe: rant now from what it was in 1815 ? I will just call your Lordships' attention to the state of the Currency at these two periods. When the Bill was passed in 1815, the Bank Restriction Act was still in operation, and there was no certainty that Parliament would put an end to a state of things which, without pretending to say whether it had produced good or riot at the time, was a state of things which could not be suffered to remain without leading tt, the most serious consequences ; and whatever pressure the country may have suffered in returning to a system of so un d curren cy, it cannot, lam sure, ever be compared to the deep mischief which would have ensued from the con,. tinuatiou of a contrary system, and which, however it might have been justified under the peculiar circumstances of the country , never would, I believe, have been established, could all its fearful consequences have been foreseen.— (Hear, hear.)—l hope that this is the last time that the country will ever see a system established to answer some temporary beneficial purpose, which can only be purchased by such a great sacrifice of principle, and by so mach actual mischief. In 1813, owing to the excess of the currency, prices of all descriptions were high—the price of labour was high, the cost of production of all articles was high, and their price was accordingly high ; and it is clear that the artificial general elevation of prices at that period might then render a price of corn necessary, which ac cording to the present general prices would be extremely burdensome. All the arguments urged in favour of that measure, under the state of our currency in 1815, must, in the present state of our currency, fall to the ground.— It is impossible that in any country a very high rate of taxation can exist without seriously affecting the cots of production. Now what is the state of the country with respect to taxation at present, compared with the state of the country with reference ta the amount of taxation in 1815 ? In 1815 the charge of public debt, funded and unfunded, amounted to 47,000,0001. What is it now? The same items which in 1815 amounted to 47,000,000/. have been reduced to 34,000,0001, a reduction of no less than thirteen millions, amounting to more than 30 per cent. on the whole charge. In 1815, it will be recollected that the Preperty Tax was in operation; but it it: unnecessary to tronhle your Lordships with any long details to show how the reduction of taxation must have operated bene ficially on the agricultural interest, as well as on all other classes of the community. The reduction of tax ation operated directly to the benefit of the cultivator of the soil, by enabling him to bring his commodities into the market at less risk, and by ensuring to him a remunerating price. I say then, looking to the circum stances under which your Lordships are called upon to ex amine these laws, and to consider whether the principle of them should he maintained or not, and to what extent pro tection should be given, your Lordships ought not to lose sight of the important change which has taken place with respect to taxation. No man can fairly argue that the question of taxation has no connection whatever with the subject, unless he is prepared to say that he does not be lieve one word of all the petitions which have been laid on the table of the House. The views which his Majesty's Government has taken of this subject, and the principle upon which the measure now before your Lordships is founded, have been greatly misunderstood. I entirely deny that the character of this measure is such as his been at tributed to it. It is not a question between protection and no protection ; it is not a question between the establish ment of some new, untried, unheard-of theory, and a system established by the wisdom of ages, and sanctioned by the practical results of experience. lam as ready as any man to admit that it would be perfect madness to attempt, in this country, to abandon altogether the protec • tion of the agricultural interest. lam satisfied that the idea of legislating upon mere abstract theories, however sound in themselves, is perfectly visionary, and that, to carry into effect any schemß, founded upon such abstract theories, would be utterly and physically impossible. lam as ready as man can be to,give to the agricultural inte rest, as well as to every other interest, such a reasonable share of protection as may not injure the interests of other classes of the community, and thereby recoil upon the in terests of the very body which seeks to be protected.— The question, I repeat, is not between protection and no protection ; it is a question between one mode of pro tection and another—between one extent of protection and another. It is not, I repeat, aquestion between some new, untried and unheard-of theory, and the practical experience of ages, for this measure is only a recurrence to the prin ciple on which the Corn Laws have uniformly been regu ated in this country, with the exception of the measure of 1815. The law of 1815, was in fact the greatest innova tion ever made upon the Corn Laws : till that law passed, a positive prohibition of the importation of foreign corn was unknown in the history of the country. The introduction of foreign corn was always a matter of regulation ; it was regulated in various ways and in different degrees, but never prohibited. The proposition now before your Lordships is not a new theory ; it is neither snore nor less than a re currence to the ancient system under which the agriculture of the country flourished for centuries, and has been raised to a pitch, at which it transcends the agriculture of all the other countries of the world. It is not just to charac terise this proposition as a new, untried theory, resorted to by speculative, cold-blooded economists, who look only to the establishment of some favourite system, indifferent to the interests of all who are affected by it. Whether these be the sentiments of economists I know not, but for myself I utterly disavow them. If I were capable of enter taining such sentiments—if I were capable of acting upon such views, and of forgetting the interests of those whom these laws will most materially affect, I should be committing an act of suicidal folly. I should be destroying my own interests, and those of all the connexions which are most near and dear to me—for the prosperity cf the agricultural interest is intimately connected with the general prosperity of the country. —Though I cannot pretend to any extraordinary wis dom, I think I may venture to say, that if a plan founded upon some mere flight of fancy—upon the abstract specu lation of some cold-blooded philosopher—were now pro posed to your Lordships, it is not very probable that I should be found among those who might be disposed to advocate such a measure. If then lam justified in saying, that the Government are not deserving cf any reproach, but rather entitled to some degree of praise for bringing this question under the consideration of Parliament ; if there are circumstances in the situation of the country to tally different in many essential particulars from those which existed in 1815, when the principle of exclusion up I to a certain price was established ; if those circumstances appear to justify the propriety of recurring to the princi ple which has for years existed to the benefit of the coun try, I am come to the point of having to satisfy your Lordships, that the law we propose to alter, does of itself involve consequences so prejudicial to the interests of the farmer, to the interests of the landholder, and to the in terests of all classesof the community, as to render it, in my judgment, an imperative duty upon your Lordships to con cur• in the removal of it. What is the objection to a sys tem of alternate prohibition, and unlimited importation? I say unlimited, because I shall be able to show that the limitation propoc-,1 by the Act of 1822 is in reality no limitation, and that the law of 18a, as well as that of 1313, is affected with the original vice of the system of alternate prohibition and unlimited prohibition. The evil is this, that it is utterly impossible for any man, whether a merchant connected with the trade in foreign corn, or the grower of corn in this country, to know in what situ ation he is likely to be by the operation of that system. — Though it may have the effect of keeping up a high impor tation price at one time, and of giving a certain degree of artificial stimulus to the cultivator of the soil at home, it necessarily gives a corresponding stimulus to those who wish to avail themselves of the first moment at which the ports open. Each class, is alternately availing itself of these apparent advantages, reciprocally contributing to their own ruin— " Quisque suum populatus iter." The necessary effect of a system of alternate prohibition and unlimited admission is, that at the period of unlimited ad mission, corn is poured into the country from all quarters of Europe, without any reference to the extent of the de mand. The law creates every motive to pour into the country at such a period, all the corn that can he collected from every part of the world. This is exactly the effect whiCh was produced when the ports were opened on the 15th November, 1818, the sum of two pence below the prohibition price having determined the opening of the ports,.. No man can say whether this might not have been the effect of fraud and combination ; at any rate, corn was poured into the country without the slightest necessity, up to the 15th February, 1819, and to that unlimited impor tation all the evidence before the Committee of 1821 as cribed the depression of the agricultural interest in the years 1820, 1821, and 1822. Here was a practical view of the evils of the system of alternate prohibition and un limited importation—evils, against a recurrence of which it is the duty of your Lordships to guard. I am persuaded that no man, who reflects upon this subject, can fail to see the monstrous evils which may fall upon the cultiva tor of the soil under such a system. Suppose, for in stance, that, in consequence of indications in the course of the summer giving the prospect of an unfavourable harvest, the average price in the month of July should rise to 80s., foreign corn would then be admitted without any limitation, at a time of all others, I will ven ture to say, the most prejudicial to the interests of the far mer. No man can doubt the mischievous effects which would result from a large importation taking place at such a time in consequence of the mere apprehensions of a deficient harvest, if it should turn out that the harvest were not deficient. The mischief would then be done, and there would be no remedy for it; , it would spread dismay over the face of the country, and involve many persons in inex tricable difficulty, if not in ruin. These objections appear sufficient to demonstrate the inefficacy and the danger of the plan which I now propose to alter. But it may be said, perhaps, that these objections were met by the Com mittee, and those evils removed by the alteration of the law which took place in 182°. That alteration of the law, I contend, effected no such thing. By the law of 1822, the ports continue closed till the average price of six years amounts to 705., and then the ports open under a duty of I is. for the first three months. The object of the Com mittee was certainly to check importation ; but what is the real effect of that alteration of the law, if the fact be true upon which so much stress has been laid, that corn mly be sold, with a profit to the grower, at so low a price, in the foreign market? Supposing that corn may generally be bought in the foreign market for 305., which, however, I am not disposed to admit ; add 10s. for carriage, and 17s. duty, and it will appear that corn, which would remune rate the grower at 575., would sell here at '7Ol. This measure, therefore, so far from protecting the agriculturist, would only lead to still further unlimited importation. If indeed, the duty, instead of 175., were much higher, as, for instance, 30s. or 405., this would operate as a check upon importation; but such a duty wduld be inconsistent with the whole principle of the measure, which adMits that when the price is 70s. importation ought not to be impeded. I can not conceive, that the law of 1822 has any other advantage over the law of 1815, except as it mitigates, in a certain. degree, the severity of that by lowering the importation price from 80s. to '7os. and thus advances one step t owar d s a more perfect and judicious system. If the system of alter nate prohibition and unlimited importation be calculated to produce all the evils I have adverted to, what other course can be adopted with regard to the trade in corn ? Would it be advisable to have recourse to the system advocated by some gentlemen, when the change of the law of 1815 was under consideration namely—that of imposing, at all times and under all possible circumstances, a high permanent duty ? Here is, Undoubtedly, at the first view, something captivating in the idea of a permanent duty withelt any average or fluctuation whatever ; but there is .this danger attending it, that if you make it high enough to be a pro tecting duty, when the price is very low, it will be so high as to be intolerable ; and if you make it so low as not to be too high in a time of scarcity, it will afford no protection in time of plenty. The only mode in which this objection could be obviated would be to give to his Majesty in Coun cil the power of altering the duty according to circum• stances—a power most objectionable in this country. I cannot conceive any Government that would not be anxious to deprecate such a power ; it is a power of dabbling with the great interests of the country ; it is a power which cannot be safely entrusted to the hands of any Minister; it is a power which might be abused ; it is a power Which Mini sters, even if they had no disposition to abuse it, might be urged on by the force of external circumstances to abuse. It would be impossible for Parliament to shut its eyes on the evils of such a system ; such a law would be repealed almost as soon as passed. If, then, a fixed duty cannot be adopted, we have only to look at a graduated duty. This is the principle upon which this Bill is framed ; it is the principle upon which former laws, with the exception of the measures of 1815 and 1622, have been framed, and the only difference between those laws and the present Bill is, that we propose to avoid, by the mode in which the scale of duties is graduated, some of the evils inherent in the ancient law. By the law of 1804 there was a duty of 245. up to 635., between 635. and 665. there was a duty of only 2s. 6d. ; and above 665. the 'duty was only 6d.— The transition from a very high duty to the comparatively trifling duty of 2s. was so sudden, and offered such im mense temptations to persons disposed to speculate in fo reign corn, that it was impossible, by any vigilance, to pre vent fraud either by fictitious sales, or the sacrifice of ca pital. The temptation to fraud was irresistible, and the law was, on this account, liable to the most serious objec tions. Of course a graduated duty, ender any circum stances, might be said to offer some temptation to fraud ; and even under the present Bill attempts might be made by speculators fraudulently to affect the prices ; but the differ ence between the higher and the lower duty not being so abrupt, it was more difficult to commit any fraud of this kind, and the temptation to commit it was much legs strong. The practical result of this measure will be, as far as legislation can effect an object, a certain equality of price, contingent, indeed, as it . necessarily must be, on fluctuations arising from varieties of seasons. The Corn Law of 1815 involved a choice, not of difficulties, but of positive evils. No man can say that it is desirable to put any restraint upon the most abundant supply of that commodity which is necessary to the subsistence of the people, but it would be practically impossible to legislate upon a principle of unlimited free trade. It is indispensa bly necessary to take away from the grower the full bene fit of the very high price that would result from a season of scarcity, because it is necessary to consult the interest of the consumer, and in the same proportion as we are obliged to deprive him of the benefit of that high price are we bound to protect him against injury from the operation of a very low price. lam not aware that , it is necessary to go into a detailed enumeration of all the items of this Bill. It speaks for itself: the principle is intelligible enough, and any one who reads the Bill will be able to satisfy him self as to the way in which it is likely to operate. But there are one or two points to which I wish to advert, and first, as to the extravagant apprehensions entertained by those who are adverse to the measure. Nothing is calcu lated to show more strongly the inordinate length to which these fears have been carried, than what has been said about the importation of corn from the port of Odessa. Much has been said, and many pamphlets have been writ ten on this subject and it is clear, from the examinations before the Committee, that a strong impression existed in certain quarters, that such a formidable quantity of corn might be imported from Odessa as to render it utterly im possible for the British agriculturist to grow crrn with any chance of obtaining a remunerating price. Now, whatever ground there may be for apprehension with re gard to Dantzic and our North American Colonies, no man, I apprehend, who reflects on the subject will doubt that the apprehension of our being flooded with corn from Odessa is perfectly visionary. Let us call to mind the dis tance of this port, the nature of the navigation, the nature of the climate, and we shall at once perceive the extrava gance of these fears. It appears by the evidence, that to obtain a cargo of wheat from Odessa we must begin by sending out a British ship from this country, and the ave rage voyage there and back is seven or eight months. Would any man be mad enough to speculate upon a cargo of wheat from Odessa, when eight months must elapse between the order and the time of selling, in which period all his calculations are likely to be ov..rthrown. It is, in- I deed, scarcely necessary to argue this point; no man could , possibly be mad enough to risk his capital in such a spe culation, and the case of Odessa may be considered as fairly blown out of the discussion. Much of, the corn grown at. Odessa is.not fit for sale in. this comitry.; for it is well known that corn, which will not grind and make good bread, is unsaleable in the English .market. There is, besides, a regular demand in the Mediterra nean for the corn of Odessa which is fit for sale ; and if English speculators interfered with the Italian de mand, the inevitable consequence would be, that the price would become higher. The fear of a large importa tion from Odessa, therefore, is a mere bugbear, which has been completely exposed by the evidence of practical men. With regard to the importation of corn from our North American Colonies, your Lordships are aware that two years ago, a Bill to facilitate that importation was brought hither from the other House of Parliament. That Bill was founded, in my opinion, upon the wisest prin ciples of policy. I cannot conceive upon what principle it can be urged that we ought not to treat with some de gree of favour our own Colonies, governed as they are by our own laws, speaking the same language, and imbued with the same spirit of attachment to the Constitution ; for let it be recollected, that when the Government of the mother country was assailed by a foreign enemy the King never possessed more loyal and devoted subjects than those North American Colonists, who shed their blood in our defence. I cannot conceive upon what principle it can be urged that we are to consider our North American Co lonies as if they were not allied to our interests ; that we are not to treat them as we treat Irelanfl, in this respect at least, as brothers, and not as enemies. The measure which excited so much apprehension in your Lordships' ininds 4 that you limited its operation to a short time, was founded upon the soundest principles of policy—principles which I hope to see sanctioned in the Bill on the table. It was the apprehension of an excessive importation front Canada, and of 'a probable importation from the United States of America through Canada, that induced your Lordships to limit the duration of the Bill, and how has the fact turned out? In the first year 90,000 quarters of wheat were imported, and in the year which has just ex pired 26,000 quarters. In this case, therefore, as in the case of Odessa, the apprehensions entertained were per fectly unfounded. There is another point on which a great deal of feeling has been excited, and which is likely to be much discussed, if this Bill should go to a Commit tee—l allude to the warehousing of Corn in this country. One of the most important objects to which the efforts of the wisest Statesman that have governed the councils of this country have been directed, was to make England the Emporium of the world, and so it has become. I hope your Lordships will not hasily depart from this principle ; I trust your Lordships will not deprive the country of one of the greatest advantages it can possess, both with respect to its internal strength and with reference to its external power. I trust your Lordships will consider before you attempt to lay the axe to the root of this system, whether you are likely to gain your own object by so doing. It is not the policy of foreign neighbouring States to encourage warehousing ; and will you not, by rejecting this part of the measure, invite the French and Dutch Governments to promote the warehousing of Corn within their territories ? If so, how can you keep it out of the country when it suits the interests of the parties to bring it in? Every body knows how short a time it requires to convey intelligence from one coast to the other ; and when on Monday mor ning a Foreign Merchant learns that the Gazette price of grain allows its importation, at the fixed rate of duty, with a sufficient (profit, will not the course of that very week provide the market from Antwerp, or any other adjacent port, with as much wheat as can possibly be sold to any advantage—(Hear, hear.)? Therefore, to prevent the warehousing of grain in this country would do no good, or rather it would prevent grain from coming here in the best Way ; it would deprive the country of all the advantages of the warehousing system, while it did not afford any real protection to those in whose behalf the exclusion of foreign grain is claimed at: your hands.—(Cheers.)—l shall be curious to hear on what arguments it can be maintained that Corn should be excluded from the warehouses of Eng land ? If, indeed, it be objected that Foreign Grain should not be admitted at all, that is one thing—that is Opposing the principle of the bill : but, if it be said only that it shall not be warehoused, and that that clause must be struck out in the Committee, that is nothing more nor less than by,a side wind defeating the whole•ohject of the measure. I cannot think that the House will be prepared to take that course , for it is much better and much more fair and manly to attack tnd vote ageing -the Bill on its principle, than io alter it in such a way as will render it inoperative. Ido not know whether it is necessary for me to go further ;' I have exhausted my own s trength, and, lam 'afraid, the patience of your Lordsh ips-(Hear,hear);—but I sin happy to say, that I have little to add to what I have already offered. Ido hope that your Lordships will permit me to impress upon you the extreme importance of a can did, fair, and temperate discussion of this great subject.— (Cheers.)—Give me leave to say, that on many recent oc casions more warmth has been displayed than usually dis. turbs the equanimity of your Lordships' House.—( Hear, and laughter.)—l trust that I shall not appeal to you in vain, when I ask you on this occasion to allow this spirit, for a time at least, to slumber. True it is, that you may naturally consider yourselves the representatives of a particular class —(No, no !)-1 say, that to a certain extent, you may not unnaturally consider_ yourselves the representatives of a particular class.—(Hear, and " No.") It is no reproach to any Noble Lord—it is the very essence of the Consti tution of the country that the Aristocracy should be con nected with the land.—(Hear. )—lt hannot be otherwise ; but I do not de' you the injustice to suppose, that because your Lordships are interested in agriculture—because it is entitled to look up to you for support, protection, and, I admit, fur favour—you are on this account insensible in any degree to the claims and interests of other classes.— (Cheers.) —It would be a libel on your House—a libel upon an English gentleman, to suppose that he was ac tuated by the miserable feeling of mere personal interest. I believe that on this occasion you will discharge your duty, from an honest conviction, that the course you are about to take—whatever that course may be—is best cal culated to promote the welfare of the whole community.— (Hear, hear:)—l only regret, to a degree which I can not adequately express, that all your Lordships should not accede to the proposition for passing this Bill, because I feel it is most essential to the interest of the country ; and because I never would have brought myself to adv rate it if I had looked at it in any other point of view.— I hope—l know that you will recollect there are other interests besides those of agriculture deeply con cerned in the issue , and watching anxiously the course your Lordships may take.—(Hear, hear,)----Without presuming too far, I may venture to state, that they have a just claim, at this moment in particular, upon the con siderate attention of the House, because your Lordships are aware of the degree of distress which, for the last 18 months, has pressed upon many classes of the community. I think I may safely assert, that there never was a period when distress pressed so heavily, and when the pressure of that distiess produced so little complaint.—(Cheers.)— Your Lordships may easily suppose that this bill relates to a subject on which the passions of men may be easily ex • cited, and inflammable materials may take fire with the most destructive rapidity. This, at least, I may say of the interests to which I allude—that they have merited consideration by the fortitude and resignation with which they have borne privations by some ascribed to the law you are now discussing : not, indeed, so attributed by me. I do not view the existing law and its effects in that light; but no man will deny that these privations were not mate rially calculated to excite the warmest sensibilities. lam not one who thinks that even to the law I propose to alter can be assigned any portion of the prevailing distress; but I know, that great error and much prejudice has prevailed upon the question. I have said before, and I conclude with the repetition, that if I am convinced sincerely of anything, it is this—that in the success of the measure now before the House are involved the real and permanent in terests of all classes of his Majesty's subjects.—(Hear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY next addressed the House, but the low tone in which his Lordship spoke, and a tem porary confusion at the Bar, prevented us from catching the opening sentences. The Noble Earl was understood to account for his rising so early in the debate, by the re gretted illness of the Noble Lord (Lauderdale) who was used to take a lead in the discussions on this subject. As to the hope expressed by the Noble Baron (Goderich) that no party feeling would be allowed to influence their Lord ships in the decision of the question before the House, such allusion could not apply to him (Lord Malmesbury), as, though the Noble Baron had been but a short time among their Lordships,'he must have been aware that he (Lord Malmesbury) indulged in no party feelings on the subject —in truth, the 'question was not a party question—it was a national question—nor would he allude to the recent co alition between the lately opposed parties ; it had no con nection with the present subject—it could produce but little influence on it. When that coalition, with all its circum stances, would be forgotten ; when the angry feelings which it had excited' would be extinguished ; when the very persons who had figured in the scene of party colli sion would be laid in the grave, the injuries of the bill be fore their Lordships would continue to be felt, if that bill should be allowed by their Lordships, to pass into a law. On that conviction of its injurious tendency, be rose on that occasion to' oppose its further progress. He would have opposed the proposal, when it was laid on their Lord ships' table, in the shape of resolutions, and before it had assumed the shape ofa bill, bad he not been pre vented by the postponement of the debate, on the se cond reading, by the regretted illness of a Noble Earl (Lauderdale.) The Noble Baron had dwelt at great length, and with much force, on the many alleged evils of the present system of the Cora Laws; but did these most exaggerated evils exist in the year 1815, or the year 1822 ? Or, if they did, why was not the entire system alter ed, and these evils removed? The Noble Baron had certainly proved the existence of inconveniences, as arising since the -lawrs'el 1815 and 1822 ; but then he bad omitted to state the very material alterations which the system had under gone since that period ; in fact, the prices, since then, were not too high, as the Noble Baron had contended, but rather too low, for the average price of any of the intermediate years did not amount to sixty shillings, and the cause of that was, that the system had been tampered with ; first, by the measure called " Peel's Bill," which went to alter the currency; and secondly, by the Bill allowing the ex portation 'of grain from British Canada.—The latter mea sure was pregnant with very important effects on the corn trade of the mother country, for it appeared from returns on the table of the House, that the ports of British Canada, which before the passing of that Bill, had exported not more than 9,000 quarters of wheat in the year, had sent out, the very year after the removal of the restrictions, no less than 26,000 quarters. As to the Noble Lord's comparison of Canada to Ireland, nothing could be more unfortunate for his argument'; for the eqse of Ireland proved what a for midable rival to the agriculture of England the removal of restrictions had gradually made that country in the pro , gress of a few years. For instance, in 1807, the quantity of wheat exported from Ireland was only 5,000 quarters ; in 1808, it rose to 43,000;. in 1809, it was 66,000 ; and in 1826, last year, it was no less than 569,000. In these fifteen years, the produce of Ireland was increased ten-fold —why, then, might it not be reasonably presumed that the progress of Canada in the growth of corn, would be, in course of time, as great as that of Ireland ? He would allow, that the larger population of Ireland created some difference, but it would appear to be the object of some to remove it, by transplanting the population of Ireland to Canada. He, however, was not one of those who thought it right to assist Canada against Ireland, and to encourage the Irish growers of corn in Canada, to compete with their countrymen in the English corn market. Besides, it was probable, that, in consequence of the differences between this country and the United States, the corn trade of Ca nada would do nrucli among the West India Islands. He had ever opposed that Bill on the principle, against the ar guments of the Noble Earl (Liveipool) then at the head of the Administration; that Canada, as a British colony, ought to be bound by no. restriction in her commerce, zeith the Mother Country. He ha.d ever contended, that the Mother Country, being over-taxed for the support of the general empire, ought to be protected against the colonies—that was the ground on which he opposed the Bill. And here he had to complain of the disappointment of expectations held out last year by that Noble Earl, who declared, through the course of the Session of 1826, that no alteration was intended to be made in that year in the system of the corn trade. The Noble Earl had been asked, whether he in tended to let out the bonded corn? The answer was, no. When the distresses of the manufacturers of the North were pressed on the notice of the Noble Earl, and his (Lord Malmesbury's) friends asked the Noble Earl, whether it was the intention of the Government to adopt any public measure for the relief of the distressed classes, the Noble Earl stated, that it was not the intention of Governmen to propose a grant of money, but to leave them to the cha ritable aid of the public; and they were left to the public, and well it was for them ; and among the several classes who contributed to their relief, the most prominent, (he was proud to say,) were the agriculturists—yet, after these repeated declarations, five hundred thousand quarters of bonded wheat were let out on the market—a most injurious measure—which, to his own knOwledge, produced a reduc tion of no less than from four to five shillings a quarter on the stock of the British Agriculturists. Then followed the opening of the ports, which, though not a measure deserv ing his commendation, he must allow to have been adopted in the most constitutional manner, with the sanction of Parliament; and here he was anxious to state, that he was not such a stickler for the existing system' as to eontend, that it ought to be left in the' condition in whichit stood at preset ? No; he would retain the principle, but alter the machinery by which it worked—as thus, he would suggest the admission of fOreign corn, by instalments; at separate inter vals of time, and in limited quantities. If this suggestidn Were adopted by the Govertnnent, it would make a better system than any yet proposed ; for instance,-no snore than 500,000 quarters of wheat ought to be admitted at a time. Suppose the average price to be 605., then let not more than 300,000 quarters be let in; if, then, the average should remain at the same .'price in October, 300,000 quarters might be -admitted; that manner of proceeding would secure the country against a glut. He should be very happy if the Government would take it into their con sideration. As to the Bill before their Lordships, if he did not object to it on principle, he would oppose it as a Money Bill. Such a measure was without precedent ; it was, in fact, a regular Commercial Bill. Now, he would contend, that corn was an article of commerce and barter. He objected to the Bill, on the ground, that the preamble declared, that it was expedient that corn should be at all times allowed to be imported into this Kingdom. Now, he would not concede that corn ought to be at all times allowed to be brought into the Kingdom. He objected to it also, on the ground, that it contained reci procity clauses, and unnecessarily too ; for, if corn were wanted, it would come without the aid of a reciprocity system; and if it were not wanted, the reciprocity system was useless. The first duty of the Parliament was to pro tect the interest of the home grower of corn ; its second, was to provide for the people so much food as the home growers could not supply, by measures, the most reason able, and consistent with the safety of the British agri culturists. As to the prospect held out, that the present Bill would afford a remunerating price, for instance, 60s. to the British, farmer, if it did so he would be satisfied ; but would the Noble Baron say, it would give a price of if foreign wheat were admitted at only a duty of 60s. Noble Lords may have seen calculations on the subject made out by a well known cambist, Dr. Kelly. From these it appeared. that the average cost of wheat at Dantzic, was 215.; that it might be imported into England at the additional expence of 12s. 6d. making together 335. 6d. Then let the duty of 20s. be added, and Dantzic wheat, the best on the Continent, would be sold in the English market at 535. 6d. a quarter. Was that the way to give the British grower a remunerating price of 60s. ? But wheat would be brought from Leghorn also, at 30s. free of all expense ; add the duty of 20s. to that, and the sel ling price of it in our market would be 50s. Would that be remuneration ? He would not trouble their Lordships with further details on this subject. He had before him returns of the average prices ofwheat in the last four years; they would serve to throw some light on the proposed ar rangeinent of reducing the duty by two shillings, for every one shilling, the price should ascend in the scale. That was a point well deservingtbeir Lordships' attention; it was,ia effect, a kind of premium on fraud. The average price of wheat in the year 1823, was 51s. ; it was only seven times above 60s. so that the remunerating price, as it had been called, was in that year only 51s. and 9d. In the year after (1824), the average was above 525., and the price was thirteen times above 625. ; so that the owners of bonded wheat would have had thirteen opportunities of releasing it. In the year 1825, the market price was six times above 625. In the year 1826, the remunerating price was 50s. 11d., and it was eight times above 60s. These, then, were the evils that would result from the establishment of the pro posed remunerating price, and the plan of reducing two shillings of the duty for every one shilling that the price may rise. He trusted that if the Bill should go into a Committee, the reduction of the two shillings would be changed into a reduction of one shilling, and that the rising and the falling scale would be equalized. Another princi ple on which he opposed the Bill was, that of admitting wheat at all times ; for very excellent Dantzic wheat could be sold at a lower price than our best Essex wheat. Such a system would lay the British farmer at the mercy of the speculator, and produce the same injury to our agriculture, that the importation of foreign wool had brought on the ruined interests of the British wool-grower. As to the cultivation of foreign grain, he was not one of those who apprehended an immense importation from Odessa—on the contrary, he did not see the slightest chance of such an abundant supply from that place at present; but the way that Odessa would act on the British market would be this :—lt appeared, from the Report of the Commissioners of 1822, that Holland had formerly been the great entrepot of the corn brought from the ports of the Mediterranean, and the Baltic—when the Baltic was shut up half the year by the weather; but it appeared now, that a little Turkish village, on the shores of the Black Sea, had grown up into a flourishing export town—its inhabitants having increased to 30,000 ; and that it annually exported 900,000 quartets of wheat to the Western parts of Europe—Holland among the rest. Now, suppose Holland supplied from Odessa, what could the importers of the Baltic grain do with it.-= They were exel2ded from Holland ; but if England opened her ports, the Mac produce would find another vent, and overflow inte the English markets. But it had been de nied that the Continent possessed the power of producing such a quantity of grain as would affect the British market. That position was disproved by the facts, that in consequence of the publication of the Orders in Council, for opening the ports, one hundred and fifty thousand quarters of grain were imported into Great Britain, in the last six weeks ; and in the last week of the month, forty thou sand quarters. Nothing could be more certain, than that we knew nothing whatever of the power of produc tion of foreign countries ; and this importation of oats I • might be -wandered as a fortunate event, if it sufficed to establish that fact. With reference to the warehousing system, which had been so strongly defended by the Noble Lord on the opposite bench (Lord Goderich) be (Lord Malmesbury) without denying its value in the view which the Noble Lord took of it, entertained a very different opi nion of its ultimate effect. No doubt it was of advantage to the country, so far as the corn, so admitted, first intended to fill our warehouses, or employ our ships, and then was used for the purpose of re-exportation ; but what was the quan tity of corn actually re-exported from this country? The House would find that it was almost nothing. The whole re-exportation of the last year's amounted only to seventy thousand quarters ; and was it worth while to risk all the dangers to our home agriculturists - attend ant upon the warehousing measure, for such an advan tage as this ? These were his objections to the details of the Bill ' • but it behoved the House to look cautiously at it with reference to the great general principle which it in volved,—the security of the landed and agricultural interests of the country. The depreciation of landed property in England had already proceeded to an undue and dangerous extent. There happened to be lying upon the table of the House, a document, from which some curious infor mation upon that head might be extracted; and as its evidence was of a nature that could be questioned, he would state a few facts from it for the consideration of Noble Lords. This paper, to which he referred, was an account of the average prices of wheat for the last seven teen years. And he had divided that period into three terms ;—the five years immediately previous to the close of the war ; the first six years of the peace ; and the ensuing six years, which came up to the present time. Then the House would find that the average price of wheat in the five years previous to the close of the war, had been 995. In the six years following, it fell to 765. : this was a fall of 23 per cent., which might, perhaps, be fair, look ing to the change in the currency, the altered price of core. modifies generally, &c. ; but there, he thought, the decline ought to have stopped. But in the last six years the fall had gene still further, for the average of that period was hardly 565. and it seemed to be imagined that even that price was too high. Looking, then, to the two extremes, the 995. and the 565. he found that in 17 years the value of landed poperty had become depreciated more than 40 per cent., and he thought that the House ought to pause before it risked the chance "of carrying that depreciation any further. Their table was loaded with petitions against the proposed measure, Irwin a class of subjects, who, though willing to make every reasonable sacrifice for the general good of the country, were also bound to defend their own interests against further injury. There was' another clasi which their Lordships were called on to protect, he meant the parochial clergy, whose incomes would be materially influenced by the effect (as to price) of the present Bill.— It was their duty, then, to look most closely at the provi sions of the Bill, and prevent every arrangement of injurious tendency. There was another respectable body of persons whose interests were involved in this measure—he meant the Clergy of Scotland, whose incomes he understoed to be appraised in proportion to the market price of grain. If their Lordships would conclude, that the Bill would injure the interests of those numerous bodies, he was sure they would never allow it to pass into a law. Their Lordships were bound, as Legislators, to consider the number of peti tions lying on their table against the measure; the im .ortance of the interests concerned; and to protect the properties of those numerous classes who looked up to their Lordships, as the hereditary guardians of their welfare. To their Lordships' decision they had that night appealed for protection. He trusted that appeal would not have been made in vain. The Noble Lerd concluded by moving as an amendment, that. the Bill be committed that day three months. The Earl of ROSEBERRY thought that there were errors on the sides of the opposers and advocates of the present system, but was disposed to support the Bill now before their Lordships. The find point to which he should • call their'ettention, was, the assumption, that it was' a greittliardiltip to ford the poorer orders to eat dear bread, and that their condition would be improved, in the same proportion as the price of corn was reduced. If the price of food was permanently reduced, assuming that the supply and demand of labour continued the same, wages would be lowered in proportion. Thus the manufacturer would not gain, while the agriculturist must have his con. dition decidedly deteriorated, by the vast importation of fo reign grain. The second principle adopted by persons who advocated the new system—a principle which he consider ed erroneous, because pushed into an extreme---was, that farmers and landlords were as deeply interested in having the price of corn low, as the rest of the community. lie he thought that the entire proposition was unsound ; did not believe it was true, that the vendor of grain was We rested in the cheapness of the commodity ; at the setae time he admitted, that farmers were more interested ttl . obtaining an advance on the price of corn than lant. lords. He should - only trouble their Lordships wit h one other doctrine on the same side of the questiooi which he considered equally erroneous ; it was th e proposition, that to place a large portion of the popula tion in a state entirely dependent on the fore i g ner for s supply of corn, would be, to produce that - comm odit y et 5 cheaper rate, than if the entire population were obliged to depend upon the supply afforded by this count r y . Thi g d would be placing a large body of the people at the mercy of the foreign grower, and would, no doubt, be disadvantee geous to the supply which could be brought into tn markets. He had troubled their Lordships with some 'doctrines adopted by one side, which he considered OW gerated, and. of which he disapproved ; he should not de tain them long with remarks, upon some opposite opinion equally erroneous in their nature. It could easily be pray that the existing law was only to be maintained by 601 '" stant relaxations and changes. The law of 1815, and 0' had been justly stated to be one and the same. Wit t° the space of not quite five years, which had elapse d sty bses quoit to the passing of the law of 1822, 3,318,00 0 gu ar ' tern of foreign wheat had been admitted into this cost ar ?" This fact proved, that the exclusive system could not o t e maintained. Having taken some of the extreme p oi° upon both sides, and endeavoured to refute them , he al at liberty to say, that he thought 'the bill, now hecre their Lordships, had this advantage, that it stood be ; tween both extremes, and was calculated to benefit e', classes of the community—one branch of which cor is e. not suffer, without another being sure to suffer in turn. One advantage had been derived ahead}, from the very introduction 'of the bill, which had' c 0 0" ciliated the animosities previously existing between P;sii interests, that ought never to be separated—the agrienit tl to and commercial classes. He was sorry to be oblige d cit say, that these classes had been set in array against e f ' it t other, but he confidently hoped, the present measure sve li , have the effect of reconciling them. He should now 110; tarn that principle, which he considered as forming the s a c basis for sound legislation on the subject of the Corn Tral —this principle tallied so entirely with that of the 13! now before their Lordships, that he felt it impossible) ' f t ; stating it, not to give his entire assent to the measure, a% to convert the statement into an argument conclusive , far as his own mind was concerned), in favour of the 1 3 n The principle he was disposed to advocate was, to fix sa lt a duty on the importation of foreign grain, as wouldi A once protect the f a rmer and the landowner from ruin rs injury, and preserve the consumer from the mischief tsi; must ensue, if he were entirely dependent for support tiPS O foreign countries. At the same time, by regulating a importation of foreign corn, according to the price of h,,ow. produce, any thing like security would be prevented. hid was a better system than the existing one, made it necessary frequently to resort to the i n ":„," position of Parliament, and Government —an ."/ terposition always delicate, and sometimes rnischie/i'c ous. Now, this was the principle of the Bill, ° l t on this ground he felt bound, not only to vote for it, h it t support it with the utmost cordiality. He had looked_ l the scale of duties proposed, with great attention ; pe rh _, lr in the original schedule the price of Oats and Barley 17:4 not in proportion to that of Wheat, but these two ta been subsequently altered. If it required any argume nt ' chew the fallacy of feats which existed in the minds' many in that House, and out of doors, it might be f in what they had all witnessed since the month of 5e.. 11 ; tember last, when foreign Oats- were admitted into °J, ports. They had already been admitted to an e nornel amount, and, as the Noble Lord (Malmesbury) stated , t : importation was going on at this moment, to a grea t e o f ' tent. Yet it bad not considerably lessened the ric e the commodity in the home market. The fact that or. wards of a million quarters -had been introduced, Vii, duty of 25., and that the duty levied at the present st (). t , was not more than Bd.—a duty which. was merely n°T, e s nal, while the price of the grain in question was big act than most persons could desire it to be, was the, s troogs t argument in favour of the proposed law ; indeed, be did Ori see how persons could object to that measure, on the gl:_ it cu :cl that it did not afford su ffi cient protection, when it app at that the average of Oats for the last six months was 28 o , an importation duty lower than that proposed by the The duty on foreign Oats, when the price was ta res t i,e eight shillings, would be four shillings, according tn. cre sS ' schedule attached to the Bill now before the House. ' t ee a duty, one-half the amount of that, nntwithstanding ffi , great introduction of foreign Oats, was found to be 511 .4 cient to sustain the prices of the commodity. 113 ;01, stated that he would give his cordial support to th e be and mentioned the reasons which induced him to do s , t be was perfectly ready to admit that there were parts ° 1 ss, measure which he thought susceptible of . improveln e modification, and even of change, if that could be o ffset ' s , However, lie distinctly and openly avowed his opit'i ° , that if the Bill was of that peculiar nature, that the alt ed l i si tion of any of its clauses 'night endanger its success t ea , session, he„would not be a party to overthrowing a 113 ,# sure, the general principle of which he approved. It b ut unnecessary for him to be more explicit on the subjec t s be Noble Lords would perceive to what lie alluded, an„ei repeated, that if any proposed change, in any of the de',i i s of the Bill, would go to endanger the present success ofvtr measure, he, for one, was ready to take it as it was. tbe r they than risk the chance of its postponement to ; session, he should vote for it, in its present shape and fo r of because lie thought anything better than that a inessu re se such paramount importance should be permitted to up for another session. Lord MANSFIELD said, the objections of the sgt - • a st turists were not directed against the principle, buteg! oo , the operation, of the law ; and for its defects, the!..d— to ceived an adequate remedy might be found. He obje t r o d the present Bill, because it did not afford proper pr otee for to the agriculturist. He thought the best protection jo s the British agriculturist was to be found in the es c i ty of foreign grain, except in times of ecarcity—that s ea ' to be denoted by the price of corn in the home mariset'o, There were two defects in the Bill of 1815, whi ch se unlined unaltered in that of 1822. The first was a tt a i st effectual protection afforded to oats, the price of which °:` to be kept up to 30s. or 325. The seco n d d e fect a l * o fs respect to the averages. Viewing importation as onlYi o s tifiable in case of scarcity, he objected to taking the rages in some particular districts, without reference t 0 .f whole country. It was inconsistent to deprecate 6 ji as an evil, and assume its existence on inadequate hole? tion. What objection could there be to the Bill of 1 °...00 Had the importing price, which is fixed, raised th e i r,ses of corn? The returns on the table negativ ed of supposition. An objection brought against the P'" 1822 was, that it had not prevented fluctuat io n vde prices. Certainly it had not : but when he looke d to the averages of the last two hundred Y ear s 6 "og' found variances of 40 or 50 per cent. frequently oee s * l ie' Since 1822, the fluctuations had not been so great as : Ic eo viously ; yet, if they had, there were other circunlstanst which might have occasioned these, independent of the V5eOG Had the measure of 1822 been the cause of the P r !jer manufacturing distress ? He thought not. In cons' s he ing the circumstances which gave rise to the distress, jo , change in the currency ought not to be omitted . He 03350. e tamed that a high governing importation price did not ! ref s the price of corn in the home market. The manufee°., d e had learned, by sad experience, that the necessity of if?, testi= had crippled theme of those who were do p e , and ought to ireetheeprefisrable, consumers of that pe e 0 ,0 The Bill of 1822 bad -been stated to be inadequo te s oso protective measure ; but he contended, that no prowl, afforded that - the principle of-eceinsion ought to be De doped. It was said, that the - Bill . now proposed s c. ). i t was, he tonaitiered it equally erroneous in innovation, but return to theancient *system e w hiche ve ie principle' s pre wished to guard against being supposed to object to t h ts ee ° sen t measure, on the ground of it s no v e lty; that circuity f° t he begged to assure their Lordships, should, with hito , b , no objection. It was upon quite different consideratio ns e i f eb it his duty to resist the progress of the Bill. lie con c ,ao; that the best course had not been taken to arrive at a sool'bjee. cision on the question then before the House. Th e O o tsfr which the fram e rs of the Bill bad in view was, it a l . 5 0 011:1 ed, to a ff ord protection to the agriculturist. Obvlssools' the judicious mode of proceeding in such a case, %olio' have been to institute an inquiry into the cos t ca rs ; 1 in this country, attended the production .f. and a similar inquiry into the cost attend an "„ass es , its production abroad. It was only when , in taw, sion of such data as these inquiries, if successful, sc°, u es ° , furnished that Parliament could, on safe grounasd'optiee proceeded to fix a rate of duty. Now, instead of a or3liCe this course. Parliament proceeded to legislate inig" A Abe 4 of both. They commenced their legislation, i hr osr a called evidence as to the cost and means of produetiescsoe' But, though an inquiry to the extent he ine ntionee_ r o jos have done much towards supplying sound and n_logaiei, formation, yet, alone, it would prove insufficient. An it, s of into the state of the currency ought to a ccomPal gtio n nothing could be more manifest than that the co: „ t . de" l the currency had the effect of materially elevati g ael" pressing the prices of corn. The sudden expenscolcriditie7 contractions of the currency, which a certain a, of it necessarily involved, must affect every . Pr o _ sthe lae,, the country, and, moreespecially the production ,01_..rsolee He felt much di ffi culty in understanding. hyo_re'cs"ast Lord could give hie support to a measure s hs a