The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-08 00:00:00

ment of themselves. It was not to be supposed that the
supply of the common article of food could be so regulated as
not to be liable to some degree of fluctuation.—(Hear.) If
any hon. member would show him a plan that would admit of
no fluctuation in the price of corn, whatever the fluctuations of
the seasons and the changes of the times, he would admit to
that hon. member the glory of having discovered a philosopher's
stone.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Jacob, in his work
upon this subject, had shown that the price of corn in France
in 1832 was 355., and that in Switzerland the prices were some-
times higher than in this country. This seemed sufficient to
warrant him in asserting that the present system of corn laws
had not only preserved equable prices in this country, but
equable prices, moreover, in regard to the prices of foreign
countries. He begged pardon for having detained the house
with these statements at so late an hour in the evening—(Hear,
hear)—and he would conclude by declaring his firm conviction
that if the house and the country were to listen at all to the
mad project of interference with their supply of food, the sooner
it were tried the better.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was better that
whatever was to be done should be done at once, in preference
to the foolish proposal of screwing down the land by slow de-
grees of increasing distress and torture. Of all horrible systems
of cruelty, this appeared to him to be the most cruel. It was
just like the operation of the tourniquet, which the surgeon
screwed and screwed again, and at each turn gave additional
pain to the suffering limb —(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Everybody was now aware how this system had worked in
the case of the currency; it had been tried for fifteen years,
and the public had acknowledged to their cost the effects of
this progressive agony. He therefore trusted that the house
would not countenance this species of protracted torture to
be adopted in the present case.—(Hear, hear, and loud
cheering.)
Mr. FRYER had heard with sorrow and pain the speech of
the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. The question be-
fore the house was one deeply affting the happiness of the
people, and yet the hon. member had treated it with derision.
—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. A. BA RING felt himselk entitled, when such an accu-
sation was brought against him before that house, to call upon
the hon. member who made it to state what expression he had
made use of to bear him out in making such a charge.
Mr. FRYER could not recall the particular words of the
hon. member.—(Hear, and cries of " Oh I") It was the ge.
neral tenor of the hon. member's speech, which left the im-
, pression upon his mind that it was couched in terms of deri-
sion. For his own part he cared not whether the resolution
before the house was to be adopted or not—(Laughter)—but, if
it should not be adopted, he gave notice that he should him-
self move for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the corn
laws.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. WHITMORE, unwilling as he was to lengthen the
discussion of this question, hoped that he might be permitted
shortly to state his opinions, not as a philosopher, but as a
farmer. He had no hesitation in declaring that he dissented,
and almost entirely, from the representations of the hon.
member who had just argued against the resolution before the
house. He did not believe that the substitution of a fixed duty
for a fluctuating one, was liable to the objections raised by that
hon.gentleman.The fact was that the present system ofcorn laws
was founded upon a fallacy, as daily experience made more and
more apparent. Theprofessed object ofthese laws was to keep
up the price of corn. They had, perhaps, this effect in times
of scarcity, but in abundant seasons the prices were not
kept up by them. From 1817 to 1820 there was a continued
scarcity of corn; but in 1820 the crops were fuller, and the',
prices immediately fell, and had continued to fall to the present
time. With regard to the fixed duty now proposed, he would
briefly advert to the probable results of such a change. It was
his firm belief that, with a fixed duty of 10s., the general prices
of imported corn could not be lower than 525. or 535. He would
take the prices of corn at Dantzic as the foundation of his cal-
culations. The prices at this market were known to vary con-
siderably according as the ports of England were thrown open
to it or not. Thus in 1821 and 1825, the prices varied from
265. to 375.; but in 1826, when the English market was closed
against foreign corn, the prices fell to 17s. From 1828, how-
ever, the prices at Dantzic experienced a very considerable rise,
owing to the relaxed provisions of the new corn laws. Upon a
consideration of the prices from 1791 to 1825, it appeared that
the average price of wheat at Dantzic was 455. I Id. But sepa-
rating from this series of years a few seasons when, owing to the
great scarcity, the price was extraordinarily increased, a fair
average of 335. 6d. was obtained as the price of corn at that
place. When to this was added the expenses of importation,
which he did not overrate at 10s. per quarter, and the proposed
fixed duty of 10s., the price to the consumer here could not be
less than 535. or 545., as he had premised.—(Hear.) The hon.
member for Essex had drawn a melancholy picture of the
distresses which would accrue to not only the landed proprie.
tors but to the agricultural labourers from any alteration of the
present system. The latter, it was alleged, would be reduced
to the present condition of the wretched serfs of Poland ; but
in this prospect one main feature was forgotten, that, whilst
Polish serfs were inhabitants of a very poor land, ours was a
very rich one. It had also been said that a vast quantity of
the poorer lands would be instantly thrown out of cultivation.
For his own part he did not expect that that would be the case.
The hon. member concluded by observing that although he
would support the general objects of the resolution before the
house, he was opposed to the proposal for reducing the duty
upon imported corn from year to year. If the question went
further he should feel it his duty to vote against the feature of
the measure.

might be estimated at Bd., which was the average price from

1790 to 1800. It was reasonable then to presume that the
farmers were receiving 30,000,0001. a year less for their pro-
duce now than they did from 1800 to 1812. The poor rates
in 1793 amounted to about 2,500,0001. The national debt
to 250,000,0001. The price of the quartern loaf was 7d.
In 1812 the poor-rate amounted to B,ooo,oool—the debt to
600,000,0001; the quartern loaf was Is. 6ed. This was the
period of agricultural prosperity. The poor rates at the pre-
sent time amount to about 6,000,0001., and the quartern loaf
is Sd

It was therefore evident that the framers were worse

off now than they were before the war, for they had double
the rent to pay, and an increase of taxation, and only the

same price for their produce. The landowners, who made
their own laws, had led the people into a war, for the main-
tenance of which they declared they would spend their last

guinea, but they had shrunk from their pledge, and thrown the

burden upon the commercial and labouring classes, and had

not paid one farthing of it themselves.
Mr. HUME rose, but gave way to Sir G. PHILLIPS.
Sir G. PHILLLPS had inquired intothe feelings of his con.
stituents, and they were of opinion that the present corn laws
should not be disturbed.—(Cries of " Question.") For these

Lord ALTHORP was not going to enter into any long dis-
cussion upon the resolution before the house. He was merely
going to state his reasons for the vote he was about to give,
which he felt , it to be his duty to give decidedly in the nega-
tive, to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. He
need not explain to those who had done him the honour to
confer elsewhere with him upon this subject how it was that,
his views generally not being favourable to what was called the
protective system, he was not prepared, whilst he voted
against the motion, to oppose it upon the extensive
grounds taken up by the honourable member for Essex.
Situated as he was he felt it to be his bounden duty to con_
skier all the conflicting circumstances and exigencies of
the times before he ventured upon the adoption of any mea-
sure, however he might approve of the general principles upon
which that measure was founded. And, looking in this way at
the state of the present times, he must say that he did not see
any pressing exigency for the measure now proposed. Whilst
the manufacturing and commercial interests were well known
to be in s satisfactory and promising condition the landed inte-
rests were but too generally in a state of the greatest distress.—
(Hear.) By the adoption of the motion of the hon. gentleman
the house would but aggravate that distress, and spread alarm

reasons he certainly should vote against the motion;
for, as the representative of an. agricultural district, he was in
duty bound to consult their wishes and their interests.—(Loud

cries of " Question," " Divide.")
Mr. W. DUI4COMBE denied that the corn laws had been
established for the purpose of benefitting the landlord at the
expense of the other classes of the community ; and he was
fully prepared to contend that they had answered all the ob-
jects for which they had been framed. What were those ob-
jects ? They were to secure to the country an adequate supply
of corn at a moderate, fair, even, and steady price—(Hear)--
and also to give to an important and large body of labourers
employment.—(Hear.) There was but one other observation
he was desirous of addressing to the house, especially consider.
ing the labours of the house, and the length to which the de-
bate had been carried. He defied any person to show that
under the existing corn laws there had been any, even the
smallest, want of a supply—(Hear, hear)—or that there had
been any material fluctuation in prices as compared with what
had occurred under any other system.—(Hear.) The average
price of corn last year was 535. per quarter, and no person
could say that was more than a bare remunerating price to the
grower. Since last year the prices had materially fallen, and
therefore to talk of further reducing them, and that by legisla.

through the country.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think that
the manufacturing interests stood in need of such a precarious
step to put them on a better footing. An hon. member had
stated his opinion that the mass of the population were now in
a better state than they had been for some time.—(Hear.) He
(Lord Althorp) had lately been consulting a table of annuity
calculations, from which it appeared that amongst a population
of four millions the deaths in England were less than in
any other part of the world. That argued something for

tion, was to talk of committing an act of complete injustice.—

(Hear, hear). At the period when the present corn law was

enacted he might truly say that he occupied a position of strict
impartiality. Fie had acted in that spirit in the support he had

given to it, and, as experience had fully justified that support
it should not now be withdrawn.

Lord PALMERSTON rose amidst shouts of " Question."
He could assure the house that he would not long trespass on
its time. He had no intention whatever of going into any
arguments on the subject.—(A laugh.) He would neither
descant on the Prussian tariff or the French customs. But

the happy and prosperous condition of the people.—(Hear.)
He stated again that, whatever might be his private opi.
nions upon the theory embraced in the question before the
house, he felt bound to vote against the motion; and he
believed every Cabinet minister would do the same. The
hon. member for Essex had taxed the government with in-
consistency ; and referred to an observation which he (Lord
Althorp) had made in reply to a question from the hon mem-
ber for Lincolnshire on a former occasion upon this subject.
He believed he could recall the very words he had used on
that occasion, which were—" That it was not the intention of
the government to propose any measure in alteration of the
present system of Corn laws—and that if any other member of
that house should propose such a measure it would not be
with the sanction of government, and that government
would not support it." He need scarcely add that the mo-
tion of the hon. member for Middlesex had not the sanction of
government, and would not meet with their support, ashe be-
lieved every Minister of the cabinet was prepared as he was to
vote against it. Thus much he had said, and thus much, he
believed, would prove to be the case. He had not said, how-
ever, that this would be considered in the light of a govern-
ment question, for upon a question on which some people's
minds were so firmly set it was impossible to say how every
government officer would feel called upon to vote.—(Hear.).For
his own part he repeated again that he declined entering into
the discussion of the question. If he did not dispute the argu-
ments of those who supported this measure he certainly could
not speak against those with whom he was likely to vote upon
the present occasion.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. HANDLEY was understood to bear testimony to
the correctness of the Noble Lord's report of the observations
he had addressed in reply to his (Mr. Handley's)question on the
occasion referred to.

he was anxious, on a question of so much importance, to state
as briefly as possible the grounds upon which he had to justify
the vote he shotWd give, and that without going into the reasons
upon which those grounds were founded. If he had under-

stood the question as leading to the affirmation of the object to
which, as it originally stood, the motion of the hon. member for
Middlesex directly led, he should have had no hesitation in at

once giving it his decided negative. The original proposition
went to deprive the landed interest of any protection whatever,
to establish a perfectly free trade in corn, and certainly that
was a proposition he could not consider just under actual cir-
cumstances. However, as the question at present stood, it was
a proposition for diminishing the amount of actual protection,
and with respect to it he was inclined to take the same views as
his noble friend Lord Althorp. He should be ready to approve
of a diminution ; for he was satisfied that the effect would not
be materially to lower the remuneration of the agriculturist, or
to sink it below a fair return.--(Question.) But, under existing
circumstances, he could not support any proposition for altera-
tion. The prices of grain were low and steady; the manufac-
turing and the trading interests were flourishing ; and as the
agricultural interest was the only one that was depressed, he
could not consent to run the risk of placing it in a worse condi-
tion. He would only state further, that he fully concurred in
what had fallen from his noble friend (Lord Althorp), and
therefore he should oppose the motion.

Lord HOWICK rose, and the cries of" Question," " With-
draw," " Divide," were loud and long continued. He would
not detain the house five minutes.—(Cheers and laughter.)
He was extremely anxious to address a very few observations
to the house, in explanation of the vote he should feel it his
duty to give, as he believed he was one of the very few mem-
bers who represented a purely agricultural district, and would
vote in favour of the motion of the hon. member for Middle-
sex.—(oh, Oh !) He wished to have it distinctly understood
that, in voting for the motion, he did not vote for the speech
wish which it had been introduced. His desire was to see a
fixed duty on corn adopted, instead of the present system of
fluctuating duties. The protection that the agriculturists de.
sired, affbrded as it was, was a millstone round their necks,
and had brought them to their present distress. He had every
reason for supporting a fixed duty. A fixed duty would bring
money into the treasury—(Shouts of laughter, and cheering)
—and would enable his noble and right hon. friends below him
to repeal other taxation ; while the present system had merely
proved injurious to the consumer, without bringing advantage

Mr. C. FERGIJSSON addressed the house.—The hon. mem-
ber for Middlesex, according to a well-understood and some-
what usual course of parliamentary tactics, changed in his
motion the words, and, he would say, the import of his original
notice, and, from a well-understood motive, to gain some votes
—to entangle in the net of his ambiguous and plausible motion
all those who were in any way disposed to vote for a relaxation
of the present corn laws.—(Hear, hear, hear.( He moved that
a fixed duty should be imposed on imported corn, with a view
to gain in the course of time a total and final abolition of the
duty. He declared, in the course of his speech, that his object
was to effect a total abolition of the corn laws, though the
words of the motion would lead the house and the country to
think that that abolition would not be suddenly and violently
introduced ; that no destruction of existing interests was to
be immediately anticipated from it ; yet he (Mr. C. Fergusson)
would say that the tenor of the hon. member's speech was
strangely at variance with the spirit of his motion. In place
of the 10s. which he proposed to be kept regularly on, he
(Mr. Fergusson) was persuaded that, if the principle of de-
ranging the present system were once established, in place of
waiting for the happy period, the golden era, which was to
come in nine years more, when, according to the hon. member,
there was to be a total, at least a satisfactory, alleviation of
the present burden of corn laws, in place of that the country
would be next year agitated with recommendations to produce
a speedy abolition, and the house would have to receive the
proposition of a repeal of the corn laws at once and altogether.
--(Loud cheers.) He (Mr. C. Fergusson) would beg to
call the notice of the house to the strange discrepancies
between the advocates of a free trade in corn. He would
take the mover and seconder of the motion, and would ask the
house did they agree on a fixed plan ? Why, they both dis-
agreed whether the price of corn was to fall suddenly, whether
it was to fall gradually, or was to be stationary.—(Cheers.)The
lion. member for Middlesex said that there could be no fall in
the price of goods if there was no reduction in the price of
labour. But then his own remedy would not cause that. If

to the agriculturist.—(Loud cries of " Question.")
Mr. BENETT rose, but was unable to proceed, owing to
the cries of " Divide," " Mr. Hume." He was only desirous

of impressing upon the house that, after the diversity of opi

nions they had heard in the course of the debate, he was more
than ever convinced that the landed interest could only perma-
nently look for protection in a reduction of the burdens which
pressed upon it. The hon. member made some further re-
marks, but we were unable to catch them, owing to the cries
of " Question" and " Divide."
Mr. HUME rose to reply. He must observe that the Go-
vernment appeared to him to stand in a very extraordinary posi.
tion.—(Hear, and laughter.) They had a cabinet which, as far
as he could learn, in a great degree coincided with the proposi-
tion which he had made, and yet which was not prepared to
come forward and vote for it. The members of the govern-
ment, it appeared, were left at liberty to vote on the question as
they individually pleased. In fact this question was, as the
Roman Catholic question bad formerly been, an open question.
Now he should say that if ever there was a question which a
government was bound to take, this question was that one.—
(Hear, hear.) He must say that the government had deserted
their duty in thus treating the subject. It was true he had
the support of some of the ministers and he thanked them for

the proposition of the hon. member were to produce a general' it. It was also true that some of the ministers had supported
reduction of prices of goods and labour, then there might be the motion by their arguments, though by their votes they in.
some colour for it. But when there was no proof that it would tended to oppose it.—(Laughter.) The noble lord (Palmerston),
be attended with that effect he did not see why the house for instance, had reasoned one way, and would vote the other.
should peril existing interests by supporting a theory.—(Hear.) Then there was an hon. baronet (Sir G. Phillips) who had ar_
A positive evil would be inflicted, and no certain good could guest for the proposition, but he would vote against it out of
result to any portion of the people. He was not surprised at deference to those who sent him to that house. Really there
the support which the hon. member received when he recol_ was no dealing with such conduct. He thought the noble
lectgd the promises that were made to the people to procure lord ( Althorp) had not done well in meeting the motion with a
them cheap bread. How many a member of that house bought direct negative. Now he must say that that course could
his seat, ay, virtually bought it, by such cajolling promises!-- not by possibility be in accordance with the sentiments
(Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") " No," did they say ? He of the noble lord, judging those sentiments from the
ge, language which that noble lord had used on more than
(Mr. C. Ferguson) would assert that through such lingua
and the other accompanying circumstances of holding out pro. one occasion during the present session.—(Hear, hear.)
mises of cheap bread to the people, were many gentlemen en. From the commencement made by his honourable friend
titled to seats in that house.—(Cheers.) Abolish the corn laws, (the member for Kirkcudbright) he had fully expected to have
Y been demolished. His hon. friend had spoken loudly and long; and what would be the consequence? Why, the loss of ever
quarter of wheat to the market would throw an acre of land but it bad happened, as he had frequently found it, that those
out of cultivation, and of course take from the labourers pro- who talked most often did least.—(Shouts of " Hear, hear,"
portionate means of subsistence. It would reduce the por- and continued laughter.) He was addressing himself to his
tion of the landlords, and fling hordes of the agricultural poPu- hon. friend, and not to those hon. members who interrupted
lation out of employment and bread.—(Cheers.) The political him. He (Mr. Hume) had pledgcd himself that if any hon.
economists said that the unemployed agriculturists must be member could show that the landed interest was peculiary taxed
employed somewhere, and that they would (most of them) find more than the other interests he would at once forego his mo-
refuge tin the manufactures. What! would the hand-loom tion and vote for the maintenance of the present protection.
weavers, who complained of their own distresses, find work for He had fully expected that his hon. friend would enter upon
the farm labourers ? Would the other branches of manufac- the task, for he had said he would ; but he had done no such
ture, though perhaps now enjoying a temporary prosperity, be thing,
able to secure to them constant means of occupation ? No. Mr. C. FERGUSSON said the First Lord of the Admiralty
They should go to the poor rates, and swell the general distress. had,
—(Hear, hear.) Let the house but look to the active machinery Mr. HUME denied that the right hon. baronet had done
going on in Prussia and all Germany to cripple the resources anything of the sort.--(0h, oh !) In fact the whole speech of ,
of England. Had they not established a tariff extending all the right hon. baronet was answered by his previous pamphlet.
over central Europe for the purpose of injuring England ? —(A laugh.)
While they were exclusive in one way should England open Sir J. GRAHAM rose to explain. It was right that he
her free trade in every thing for the benefit of others ? It was should set his hon. friend right upon the point to which he had
said that there was a duty taken off wines. What wines ? alluded, especially as similar allusions had been made by his
The house should not be deceived by words. The continental right hon. friend the Vice. President of the Board of Trade.
states said they would not reduce their tariff; their object was The pamphlet to which allusion had been made was really the
fair and national ; and let England adopt their example, or at work of a Cumberland yeoman. It was not written by him
least take warning by it; they wanted to rear up a manufactur. (Sir J. Graham), but he had assisted in its publication. He
lug interest of their own. He (Mr. Fergusson) would state certainly was not responsible for its arguments or its state-
candidly that he thought it the safest and the justest plan to ments.—(Hear.)
have a graduated scale of duty; to have no time without a duty, Mr. HUME said, well, then, the speech which the right hon.
but to have the ports open at all times. Let a fixed duty baronet had delivered that night found an answer in the pam.
of 10s. be established, and down went the security of the phlet of the Cumberland yeoman, to which pamphlet the right
farmers,—(Cheers.) (While the hon. member was speaking hon. baronet had contributed.—(No.) There was, therefore, but
there was considerable confusion and talking in the gallery.) one point in the able and eloquent speech of the right hon.
Mr. BROTHERTON said, that he would not attempt to baronet to which he felt it necessary particularly to advert, for
argue the question at this late hour, but having attended to that speeds was a mere string of fallacies, not more applicable
the arguments on both sides, and given the subject a dispas- to the corn laws than were any in the book of fallacies pub-
sionate, and he hoped an impartial consideration, he felt bound lished by Jeremy Bentham. The point to which he alluded
to state, that in his humble judgment the present corn law was this :—The right hon. baronet had said that the landed
was not consistent with the principles either of justice, hu- aristocracy were a great and important body. They were so,
manity, or sound policy. It was unjust to give one class an and he (Mr. Hume) wished to see them wealthy and respected.
exclusive monopoly to the injury of the rest of the community. But the right hon. baronet had told the house that they were
Whether this was to be considered as a British question, or as in difficulties—they were encumbered with debts, settlements,
an European question, we ought not to lose sight of justice. and mortgages, and that they must have protection or be
For what was morally wrong could never be politically right. destroyed ; which meant, that for the support of the landed
It was inhuman to deprive the labouring classes of their right aristocracy the rest of the community must be taxed.—(No,
to purchase food at the best market, and to keep many in a no.) That was his explanation; and he knew of none other
state of starvation, who might, if the corn law was repealed, that could by possibility be given. High prices were to be
find profitable employment. It was impolitic to continue a law maintained in order that high rents might be continued, and
which did not answer the end for which it was professedly in. high rents in order that the landed proprietors might have
tended. He did not consider this as a question between the large incomes ; which was, that one class of the people might
farmers and agricultural labourers and thecommercial interests, be supported to the injury of the rest.—(No, no, and Hear.)
butbetween the landedaristocracy and the rest of thecommunity. If government acted upon that principle, and he was sorry
He contended, that as we were dependant upon other nations to say that from what had occurred he found it would,
for our supply of cotton, silk, and various other articles, as it would adopt a most erroneous course. The honour-
well might we be dependant for our supply of grain. Nations able member for Essex had called him a philosopher.—
ought to be dependant on each other, that they might feel the (Mr. Baring said " No." Laughter.) The honourable
importance of cultivating the arts of peace, and turn their member had spoken of philosophers and political economists and
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, of the hon. member for Middlesex so completely in connection
and learn war no more. He acknowledged that the agricultu- that it was impossible for the listener not to associate them to.
nets were distressed, but denied that it arose from the poor gether. Now he should like to know what a philosopher was.
rates, but from another cause, The average price of the quer- —(Question, question.) Really, when a member had been at-
tern loaf from 1790 to 1800, was eightpence. The average tacked, the house usually had the courtesy to admit of a reply.
price from the year 1800 to 1813, was fourteen pence. Now But he could not follow the example too frequently acted upon,
an advance of sixpence on the quartern loaf, allowing one and quarrel about words ; nor would he go into any long exa.
pound a day for each person, amounted to 37.400,0001. a mination of the speech of the hon. member for Essex. He
year. At the present price of wheat, the quartern loaf would prefer referring to another speech upon the same sub-
_ _

ject which had been delivered by that hon. member, and leave

the one speech to answer the other. The speech to which he
alluded had been delivered by Mr. Alexander Baring on
the 27th of February, 1815. The hon. member then quoted
passages from the speech referred to, in which it was stated
that it was idle to treat the question under consideration, when
the speech was made, as one involving the interest of the tenant,
and still less of the labourer. It was the interest of the land-
lord the measure was meant to forward. The quotation went
on to say that in framing laws it was necessary to take into ac-

count the qualities and nature of the land to which they were

to be applied. One sort of country was fitted to produce grain,
another minerals, and so on, and legislation ought to be in

accordance with circumstances. If Holland and Malta had di-
rected their efforts and legislation to provide their own food
within their own limits they might have scratched their rocks

and sand in vain. Such a scheme of legislation was not propor.

ioning the supply of food to the population, but cutting down

the population to the food. It was not lengthening the bed to
suit the man, but shortening the man to suit the bed. Such
had been the speech delivered by Mr. Alexander Baring in
February, 1815, and he left it to answer the speech of the hon.
member for Essex in the present debate. There was only one

other matter he wished to notice. He had omitted the con-
cluding part of the notice he had originally given, simply be-
cause he wished to bring the subject unfettered before the

house. He wished for hon. members to have an opportunity
of acting freely. He now left the question in the hands of the
house, conscious that he had done his duty in bringing it for-
ward, and hoping that the house would do theirs in the way in
which they dealt with it.
Mr. BARING said that as the hon. member for Middlesex
had referred so particularly to a speech which he had made
twenty years ago, he must just say in explanation that that
speech had been directed, not against the present amount of
protection, but against a proposition which had been made to
increase the protection at that time contended for.
The gallery was then cleared, and the house divided, when
the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —157
COUNTY RATES.
Lord ALTHORP, in pursuance of the notice he had given,
rose to move that a select committee be appointed to inquire
into the county rates in England and Wales, and to report whe-
ther any, and what, regulations might be adopted to diminish

their pressure on the owners and occupiers of the land. The

noble lord stated that he was induced to move for the appoint-

ment of such a committee by the conviction that to the oppres-
sion caused upon the agricultural interests by local burdens

the distress under which those interests laboured was really at-
tributable. There were two branches, however, of the local

charges which he thought it would be better not to include in
the inquiry he then moved for, namely, the highway rates
and the poor rates. Those rates did not belong to what
was called the county rate ; but, in addition to that reason
for excluding them from the present inquiry, there were

two others, which he thought would be deemed quite satis-
factory by the house. The first was, that there was at that
moment a measure before Parliament for the regulation of
the highway rates ; and the second, that in addition to the

intention which he had expressed of introducing a measure
on the subject of poor laws, those laws constituted in them-
selves a subject-matter well worthy of a separate and distinct

investigation, should it appear therewas not already information
before the house sufficient to enable it to legislate upon the
question. As the subject which he proposed submitting to
investigation was one which resolved itself into a variety of
details, it was his intention to propose the appointment of a
very numerous committee, in order that, should it appear to
its members advisable, they might have the opportunity of
dividing themselves into several sub-committees. Whether
they should do so or not he proposed leaving entirely to their
discretion. The noble lord then formally proposed his motion.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR hoped the noble lord would have no
objection to extend the inquiry to Ireland, where not only were
immense sums of money levied under the head of county
rates, but the grossest misapplication of those sums could be
proved to exist. In the county he represented 100,000/. a
year was levied for county rates.
Lord ALTHORP would not say whether it might not
become desirable to move hereafter for the appointment of
a committee for Ireland such as he then applied for for

England, but submitted that, as the mode in which the
county rates were laid on in the latter was different from
that in the former—the rate in Ireland being levied by the
officers of the grand jury, while in England it was raised
under the orders of the Court of Quarter Sessions—it
would be highly inexpedient to perplex the committee by
uniting the two inquiries. The subject matter, moreover,
to be inquired into by the committee his motion sought to
appoint would, in his opinion, be quite enough to occupy
their attention. He would not pledge himself to move
the appointment of a committee to inquire into the Irish
county rates, but he did not hesitate to say, he thought
such a motion would be found necessary.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said, if the noble lord had no
objection, he would at once move for a committee for Ire-
land similar to that now applied for.
Mr. S. RICE thought the house was bound to wait
until the working of the Irish Grand Jury Act of last

session was ascertained. In his opinion, that act would
remedy the abuses complained of in connection with the
county rates.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR said the Irish Grand Jury Bill o:

last session might, and he thought would, effect an cite•
ration in the levying of the county rates, but not in the
expenditure ; and it was the latter far more than the for
mer that was complained of.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that, as the committee was to
be divided into several sub-committees, one of the divisions
should direct their attention and inquiries to the working
of the Grand Jury Bill of last session uppn both the levy-
ing and expenditure of the county rates. At the same
time he thought the subject was one well worthy of a
separate motion. He was quite disposed to admit there
was some reason for excluding those branches of local
taxation which came under the head of poor rates and
church rates from the inquiry the noble lord opposite pro
posed to institute, but be confessed he saw no reason why
the highway rates, which constituted a highly important
feature in local taxation, should not come under the in-
vestigation of the committee. He was aware-that the

highway rates were levied by an authority different from
hat under which county rates were raised; but be
bought it would be extremely expedient to show the
manner in which those rates were expended.
Mr. LITTLETON begged to remind the right bor.
baronet that there was at that moment a bill on the sub-
ject of highways before the house.
The motion was then put and agree I to, an itl e c lE-
mittee appointed.
Althorp, Viscount
Peel, Sir R.
Russell, Lord J.
Graham, SirJ. R. G.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Wrottesley, Sir J. B.
Estcourt, T. G. B
Price, Sir R.
Fremantle, Sir T.
Sanford, E. A.
Hodges, I'. L.
Cartwright, W. R.
Lemon, Sir C.
Verney, Sir H.
Benett, John

Bethel', R.
Blamire, W.
Wilbraham, G.
Wilmot, Sir E.
Buller, J. W.
Calvert, Nicholson
Carter, J. B.
Chandos, Marquis of
Tyrrell, Sir J.
Strickland, G.
Lefevre, C. S.
Clive, R. H.
Eastnor, Viscount
Folkes, Sir W.
Greene, T. G.
of the day were the
I at half-past one

The other order
the house adjourn,

Vernon, G. H.
Wood, Colonel T.
Childers, J. W.
Hyett, W. H.
Tyrell, C.
Milton, Viscount
Heathcote, G. J.
Lincoln, Lord
Brotherton, J.
Mosley, Sir 0.
Cripps, J.
Denison, J. E.
Palmer, R.
Scrope, P.
Rooper, J. B.
en disposed of, and
'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Mr. Hume's motion was lost last night by a
majority of 312 to 155, or 157. This result
will, we suppose, surprise no one who has at
all attended to the composition of the House of
Commons. It is said that when a certain indi-
vidual of easy principles was asked why he com-
mitted a certain questionable act, he answered,
" A man must live." The statesman retorted,
" I don't see the necessity for your living."
Sir James Graham's argument was, we, the
landed aristocracy, must live ; and were we to
be just, we could not live. The people of
England are somewhat of the opinion of the
French Minister—they do not wish the exist-
ence of any class who, to live, must trample on
justice. We are glad to perceive that the ques-
tion has been cleared of all connection with cur-
rency. It was demonstrated in the able letters
of " H. B. T.," which lately appeared in this
Journal, and which have since been separately
published, that the currency of this country,
even according to the bullionists, was not de-
preciated till the beginning of 1809, and that
the high prices received for agricultural produce
during the war were not caused by any depreci-
ation, but by the existence of a demand in con-
sequence of the sudden extension of our manu-
factures, which our home agriculture was totally
unable to supply. They who wish to know
the real merits of the question, will obtain far
more information from the pamphlet of " H.8.T."
than from the debate of the two last nights. Sir
James Graham, indeed, dwelt upon the altera-
tion of the standard of value ; but putting even
out of consideration the period from 1809 to the
' close of the war—though even during that pe-
riod there was no depreciation of the standard, if
we take the exportable commodities of the country
for our comparison—rents had attained their ut-
most height before 1809. Our correspondent de-
monstrated that the landlords profited enor-
mously by the increase of prices during the war
—that the expenses of the state enormously in-
creased by a contemporaneous enhancement of the
prices of all agricultural produce—that the loans
raised to defray these expenses were proportion-
ably large—and that in the expenditure of the
loans a very great part of them passed into the
pockets of the landed interest in the shape of
extraordinary profits. That landlords never
save is proverbial. In the case of our land-
lords, they not only did not save from the ex-
traordinary profits made by them, but they con-
tracted debts equal to the purchase of both the
old and increased rents ; and they have the
assurance to call on their countrymen to main-
tain them still in the possession of the estates,
the value of which they have already consumed.
We have nothing to do with the value of land
any more than with the value of broad-cloth or
leather. The legislature owes to every indivi-
dual protection in the exercise of his industry,
and in the enjoyment of what lie has derived
from it. Any other protection than this is par-
tial taxation----is imposing on all classes a tax
for the benefit of one class. Land ought, like
other commodities, to be left to itself. The
argumentunz ad misericordiam of Sir James
Graham might be urged with equal propriety by
all classes of owners of property. There is, in
fact, no class of men who can be ruined with so
little injury to the state as landowners ; because
they are merely the consumers of that which re-
mains after the fanner has repaid himself his ex-
penses and the usual profits of stock. The
bankruptcy of a farmer, or a manufacturer, or a
merchant, is not only individually a calamity,
but a calamity to the community ; because they
may possess skill, which is thereby lost, and
numbers of men may be thrown idle. But a
landlord, who is merely a landlord, is qiiite in a
different predicament. Whether twenty indivi-
duals sell out twenty thousand pounds' worth
of stock each, or twenty estates worth twenty
thousand pounds each, is of no earthly conse-
quence to any but the individuals themselves.
We will undertake to furnish, at a moment's no-
tice, an individual who shall relieve any gentle-
man of his estate on the condition of spending the
income—the only intelligible function of an Eng-
lish landowner. It is a disgrace to an English le-
gislature that such arguments should be listened
to. Lord Darlington observed last night, that he
knew that a relation of his own had lately, in addi-
tion to several reductions since the war, reduced his
rents from eight to fifteen per cent. He believed
that several other landlords of England had been
very considerate towards their tenants ; and he had
no doubt that many more of them would be found to
be equally kind and philanthropic, "if their ability
were equal to their will.—(Hear, hear.) If a man
were obliged to reduce below a fixed point, he
might as well be required to give up his entire pro-
perty.—(Hear, hear.)" If his ability were equal to
his wili ! If an owner of house property were to use
an argument of this kind, he would be deemed fit
for Bedlam. " What is the rent of' this house ?"
" Sixty pounds a-year." " Sixty pounds ! Why
there are twenty such in this street, equally good, at
forty pounds, and who do you think is to give you
sixty for what can be had for forty pounds?" " But
my debts. I have mortgaged the house, and pay
fifty-nine pounds of interest, and so cannot afford to
let it for less." " You and your mortgage may be
—. A pretty fellow to suppose that lam to
give twenty pounds a-year more than your house is
worth, because, forsooth, you have mortgaged it."
Why are landlords to be excepted from the ordi-
nary commercial rules? The argument involves
that sort of insult to the understanding of those to
whom it is addressed, that in common life would
provoke a corresponding treatment. But as the
house is composed of landlords, the country must
pocket the injury and the insult. The speech of
Mr. Poulett Thomson was admirable. It was in
every respect a contrast to that of Sir James Gra-
ham. He painted in forcible colours the series of
blunders committed by the landholders, ever since
1815, when we were 50 years a-head of every na-
tion of Europe. The tendency of all our measures
since that time has been to deprive ourselves of our
advantageous position, to compel other nations to
become manufacturers whether they would or not.
Rents, forsooth, must be kept up ; and without high
prices there cannot be high rents. Perish foreign com-
merce, says Sir James Graham. But this anathema has
been pronounced 30 or 40 years too late, as was
forcibly remarked by Mr. P. Thomson. Fortunately
for Sir James Graham and other landholders, we
exportsir
James
Graham
millionso
cannot
f manufacturestherefore
have,
everyin year.
this