The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-05-09 00:00:00

that could he given to agriculture would be by a
reduction of taxes to a great amount, and therefore
he should rte for the amendment.
11r. IlrOcity WAS cow/weed that a great reduc-
tion of essaty'm could be effected; and feeling that
it was neeesaa►y to carry reduction as far as it could
be carried, in order to shed relief to the country,
he gave itissoipporr to the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR or the EXCHEQUER said, it
was generally understood shot those who gave their
support to may motion, did in on those grounds os
which it was placed by the inover—(Hear, her►)
unless those grounds were espresaly disavowed, and
the distinct grounds on *lnch they founded their
►upport were explained.—(Hear.)—He thought the
present motion, and the grounds on which it rested,
went In shake the only solid and substautial fowl.
dation of public credit.--(ltieur. hem.)
Me. POWLEII' said, in agreeing to the motion rd
the Hoot. Member for York, he by no means toe.
curred with him in opinion as to the amount of
toxatioo that could be reduced, for he could newer
be a party to any measure that would compromise
public fiuth.

Sir W. DE C&EIPIGNY supported the amend.
taint.

M►. Bettor said, as he had always held that
the grestest relief the country could receive mutt
he from the reduction of taxation, he should vote
for the amendment of the Hun. Member for York.
Mr. T. WILSON said he should always be at
ready as the Hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Brightl
to tote for reduction of taxation as far as it could
be effected with safety to the public interests.—
(Hear. hear.) —But he could by no means concur
with him in voting for • motion for reduction of
taxation. which was introduced under circa's.
stance• so onsinout to the public faith and credit al'
the country.—(Hear.)
The House then divided—
Noes
Ayes
Majority @elitist the Amine!mem B2

RELIEF OF AGRICULTURE.
On our return to the gallery we touud the House
in Committee, and
Mr. BEesrr on his legs. Whether it were pm.
aible, or not, he said, to retrace their steps. was
not for him to say; but he was convinced that it
was impossible to go on, utiles' in the words of the
Hun. Member for Tountou (Mr. &trill), they re.
lazed the yoke which they had 'flouted too tight ;
he therefore thought they should relax from the
principle of the present Coen Bill. He was at a
loss to conceive how the Hon. Member for Porter-
lington (Mr. Ricardo), on his own principle*, could
be opposed to such an alteration of the present
laws as would immediately estahlish a free trade its
corn. The Hon. Member for Westruluster (Sir F.
Burdett) told them diet importation wookf rose
the prices; if so, these who were friends to the eon-
sumer should wish for higher duties even than
those which were proposed by the Honourable
IMember for Somerset (Sr T. Lethbridge.) He
had taken the pains to ascertain the prices at which
corn could be brought into the. London markets.
The evidence of Mr. Sally, to which the Honour.
' able Member for Portarlingron had referred, slated
flint 56.. was the cost of brioging it from the in.
tenor of Poland. But he (%lr. B.) did not Ita.
why it should not he brought from the interior of
Ragland ; for an English gentleman farmer, its
impartial a witness, he apprehended, as Mr. Soule.
who *as a foreign corn-merchant, and wished the
duty to be as low as possible, said it could be deli-
eared in London at 31s. The price curfew at Me-
mel iu January last was 335. 10d.; he would call it
344., as he had rather give the fraction %Nowt his own
calculition. Tokiag, therefore, 94.. es the tome at
Memel, the freight sod insurance to London cooid
be gut at 4s. ; lauding and warehousing in London
would be gs.. the profile the me: chant at 15 per cent.
(if that was not sufficient there were persons ill the
House who could correct his estimate) would be3s.:
the amount of duty which he proposed to lay on ass
445. which would make the total charge 676 That
Ire considered as a autficieeit protecting price to the
British agriculturist. and it would give the landlord
the rents of 1792. There was also a circumaionLe
which had escaped attention, which was the over-
measure or difference between the foreign corn
measure and that of this country. A very honest
rem° had stated that difference to amount to more
than would cover the charge of freight and insurance.
Ile would take it, however,at half, that was Is. which
he would add to the profit of the 'Detrital's, malting
it 20 per cent. He claimed for the landlords tie
rents of 1794, because he considered them equaliy
'tallied to a profit on their capital a. the merchant,
manufacturer, or tradesman, and at that period In
which he referred taxation war low, and we had a
gold currency. Oise more calculation would prove
the claim which he pat in. The Hon. Member for
Portarlington admitted the farmer was entitled to a
protectiug duty equal to the amount of tales which
lie paid. which were not paid by the formers in
other couutries. By the erideoce before the Com-
mittee it was proved that the amount of rates sod
taxes paid by the farmer amounted to 3s. 10J. per
bushel on the corn he raised, *lnch would amount
to 30.. Bd. per quarter ; but he only chained a duiy
of Y 4.. It was desirable to feed the people of a
&voider us cheaply us possible, but it was a 111. r,
desirable object io make them as happy as pi,seibk
By adopting the principle of importation, without
such a duty as would protect our own farmers, we
might give the people cheaper food. We shoohl
then withdraw them from agriculture, drive them
into towns to work with machinery in the manufac-
tures, and destroy the healthy. hardy, robust pea-
inotry, the sturdy and substantial yeomanry. and.
he might add, the itidependent country gentlemen.
If by so doing it were possible to odd to the tem
porary riches of the nation, they 'lever could add 1
the happiness of the people, to the strength of a-
mnion, or the security of its independence. I,
support of his last proposition. the Von. Menthe
quoted the observations of Adam Smith on the
Dutch nation. The Noble Lord talked of net
forcing a measure upon the country ; but had there
been petitions front oily part of the country ognitot
grouting any protection to the farmers, or *gal
any change in the present corn laws ? None, at
'd
w rs sure
shouldtlle
be
whole country
protected.
was • isisxiiou;laidt that I::
agriculture
Ministers never hesitated about lercing use
upon the country. Again, they were told not'''
lean too much to tire landed iuterest. B I