The National Register.
London, England, 1822-05-06 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF.

Mr. I.°CHHART presented a petition from persons in
Suilidit, complaining of agricultural distress.
Mr. COKE presented similar petitions from places in Norfolk.
Mr. DENISON presented from Mr. Taylor. a petition, com-
plaining of the operation of Mr. Peel's bill, and or agricultural
distress. The petitioner stated, that he had, in 1811, purchased
farms to the amount of 1600001.; he afterwards mortgaged them
for t10,00(0.; and he then uttered to sell them for half the pm,
chase, without being able to obtain purchasers.
Mr: Sergeant ONSLOW thought the individual had no right
to complain. lle knew the unnatural state of the currency, and
the purchaser, therefore, should not have made an improvident
bargain.
Mr. WEATERN said, the individual was not to blame—a
former House had encouraged the fraud. for in 1811, the House
of that period had voted that a pound note and a shilling were
equal to a guinea.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that House had done mo e. After
having passed such resolution, 13th May, iBll, within two
months it agreed to a bill, which made it an o%noe to give less
than fens. fur the one pound note, the maiket value of the bit of
rag being at that time pis. bd. lle was not speaking of the
present House : God forbid he should place himself within the
reach of its vengeance, by expressing his opinion of it. He was
a,,eaking of the wise labours of a tinnier 1 ouse, which were
now water of history. Ile therefore declared that the House—
lie meant the House of lel —hail sanctioned a fraud, fur the
resolution of that period was nothing less.
The petition was then re.d.
Sir 'I. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition front some place
in Somerset hire, complaining of agricultural distress. The
petitioners did not uUribtate all their distress to the taxes, but
they should view with great satisfaction the savinAs in the ex-
penditure. and the cons..quent remission of taxes to the amount
1,800.1..001. He hoped the Salt Tax would be first tax dust
would be repealed. lie expressed himself iu favour of the pan
fur introducing chartered country banks.
Mr. P. GRENEELL spoke against the scheme of chartering
banks, as it appeared from %hat took place in the Court of Bank
Directors that day, that the sacrifice was to be the extension of
the Bank Charter for ten years. To that extension he would
object tinder any citeuinstanceto After the experience had by
the country, lie would resist with all his power the continuance
of the Bank monoply ;" he thanked the noble Marquis for
teaching that word. lie would never vote for the ccntinuanee of
that tyranny which had been exercised over the country as well
a., towards the governnient.
Mr. J. SM rni said that the country banks were not to be
chartered banks. . . .

Mr. HI-WiIiISSON spoke against the practice of discussing
4111e6tiOlin on every petition ;it was pruductile illCUnrualeilee,
;aid put off the public business.
Mr. CREEVEY was of a very different opinion. It was the
duty of members to discuss grievances on the presentation of
petitions cow; lighting of wrongs ; and he holed the practice, the
extremely useful piectice, would he continued. It might by
convenient to the ministers to get rid of important questions
t=iler one grand debate; but they were there to protect end pro-
mote the interests of the country.
Mr. I I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt
unfai•ly by the !louse, in agreeing to extend the bank charter
without consulting the Hoti-e ; and that lie had tl.o dune %k rung
in atticiputing the termination of the bank charter eleven
jean.
The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appealed to the
j;ouse whether he ought to be charged with unfauhtvi i How
r.,•uld he submit the theiu.ure to the House before lie knew or nut
whether the terms to Le propt..ed would be accepted by the hunk