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

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF.

Mr. Lf CKHART presented a petition from persons in
Sufiblk; complaining of agricultural distress.
COKE presented similar petitions from places in Norfolk.
Mr. DENISON presented from Mr. Taylor, a petition, corn.
plaining of the operation of Mr. Peel's bill, and of agricultural
distress. The petitioner stated, that he had, in 1811, purchased
farms to the amount of 160,0001.; he afterwards mortgaged them
for 60,o001.; and he then offered to sell them for half the pun
chase, without being able to obtain purchs.. ors.
Mr. Sergeant (JNSLOW thought the individual had no right
to complain. He knew the unnatural state of the currency, and
the purchaser, therefore, should not have made an improvident
bareain.
Mr. WESTERN said, the individual was not tc blame—a
fonner House had encouraged the fraud, for in 1811, the House
of that petiod had toted that a pound DOW and a shilling were
equal to a guinea.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that House had done too e. After
having passed such resolution, 13th May, Pill, within two
rimiths n agreal to a bill, which made it an offence to give less
than 20e. for the one pound note, the market value of the bit of
rag being at that time 13s. ad. He was not speaking of the
present House : God turbid lie should place himself within the
reach of its vengeance, by expressing his opinion of it. He was
creaking of the wise labours of a framer t!otise, which were
slow matter 01 history. He therefore declared that tlic House—
be meant the House of 1811—had sanctioned a fraud, fur the
r_solution of that period was nothing less.
The petition was then re..d.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from some place
in Sornersetshire, complaining of agricultutal distress. The
petitioners did not attribute all their distress to the taxes, but
they should view with great satisfaction the savings in the ex-
penditure, and the consequent remission of taxes to the amount
01 l,tiOnJaad. He hoped the Salt Tax would be first tax that
would be repealed. He expressed himself in favour of the plan
for introducing chartered country banks.
Mr. P. GREN FELL spoke against the scheme of chartering
banks, as it appeared from what 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 lie would
object under any circumstances. After the expelience had by
the country, he would resist with all his power the continuance
of the Bank monoply ;" he thanked the noble Marquis for
teaching that word. He would never vote fur the continuance of
that tyranny which had been exercised over the country as well
as towards the government.
Mr. J. SMITH said that the country banks were not to be
chartered banks.

Mr. HCSAISSON spoke against the practice of discussing
questions on every petition ; it was productive of inconvenience,
and put off the public business.
Mr. CRE E wets of a very different opinion. It was the
duty of members to discuss grievances on the presentation of
petitions complaining of wrongs ; and he hoped the practice, the
extremely useful practice, would be contevued. It might be
convenient to the ministers to get rid of important questions
after one grand debate; but they were there to protect and pro-
mote the interests of the country.
Mr. HUME said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt
untaiily by the House, in agreeing to extend the bank charter
without consulting the House ; and that he had also done wrong
in anticipating the termination of the bank charter eleven
years.
fie CII A NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appealed to the
House whether he ought to be charged with unfairness How
could he submit the measure to the House before he knew or not
whether the terms to be proposed would be accepted by the lank?