Star.
London, England, 1823-06-12 00:00:00

ject of etligration,'but the lloneurable Member -wa,s
prevented from procteding further by calls for the
que-tion, and cries of ‘. Spoke, spoke!"
Mr. JA HIES was not only.of 'opinion that the Com-
bination Act ought to he repealed, but that mecha-
nics ought to b at liberty to emigrate.to whams.
country they should think propel': If Ifie TOF
the protection of manufacturers were to be repealed,
he saw no reason 'why the Conn Vaii7s*Shisidarbetalso
be laid aside. He called upon the agricultural Gen-
tlemen then present to concur %%kir him in •rejectin‘e
the Bill ; for it was evident that if the workriren could
not earn sufficient for their maintenance by their la-
bour, they must be supported out of the produce of
the land. He decidedly opposed the Bill.
Mr. BYNG rose also to cemose the Bill, not belies,-
ing that any practical good could result from it to
the country. He was perfectly aware that many most
respectable individuals, large capitalists in the City
of London, were anxious that the Acts now .existing
should be repealed; but he could not place their
wishes in opposition to the feelings and the welfare
of that large class of the popUlation who would be so
materially affected by it. He took that opportunity to
deny that the imrishes in the neighbourhood of Spi-
talfields had suffered severely from the number of
persons engaged in the silk manufacture who sought
relief ; but so far from feeling the operative weavers
a- burthen, the other inhabitants of those parishes in
which these people resided had, to a man, instructed
him to oppose the Bill. He begged, while on his
legs to oppose the Bill, to say, however, that he by
rio means wished to see the numbers- of persons em-
plc)) eJ in the manufactories in the City increased.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman C. SMITH,
which the calls of ‘. Question, question!' prevented
being heard, the house divided, when there were
For the third reallig - • 53
Against it . 40
maiority —l3
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
RESUMPTION OF CASH PAYMENTS.
Mr.WESTER.N rose, inconsequence of a notice
which he had given a long time since, to submit that
Motion to the consideration of the House. Having
made two unsuccessful attempts during the last flee-
sion of Parliament to persuade the House to go into
an inquiry on the subject of our Cash Payments, be
felt that, perhaps, he might in:some degree incur the
charge of too great pertinacity, did he not explain to
time House his reasons for the line- of conduct which
he had rsued. So convinced was be that the views
which he took of the measure were positively jolt
and col rect, that tie had been unable to prevail upon
himself to relinquish :his intended Motion. He re;
mained perfectly convinced that the operation of this
law of 1819, which had so contracted the currency
Of the country, and which was well known by the
• title of'' Mr. Peel's Bill,"—so well aware was he of,
the evils which that Act had inflicted upon the coun-
gey—of the calamities which it had brought upon all
• classes of the people—so much had the public bur-
diens been increased by it—Such extensive confisca-1
tion of property had ensued from it, that he would
have felt that ne did not discharge his duty to h.s
constituents and to the country, did he not call upon
Parliament to inquire into the subject. in proposing
his motion he begged to be understood as not con.
templating a return to that state of things which had
existed during the continuation of the Bankers' Act
—be did not cobtemplete a re-establishment of un-
limited paper currency—nothing could be farther
from his intention ; neither did he contemplate, by the
introduction of his motion, to pledge any Hon.
Member who should support him to any ulterior pro-
position which he should feel it his duty to submit to
the House.— CThe Hon. Gentleman here referred to
the arguments of the Hon. Member for Poitarling-
ton (gr. Ricardo) in 1819; but the conclusion of his
sentences were for the most part inaudible to us. We
understood the Hon. Member to object to the views
• taken of the subject by Mr. Ricardo, at the period
already mentioned].—He (Mr. Western) did not con-
sider the question merely as an agricultural one. He
protested against viewing it in that light; but at the
same time he would contend, that it was a question
which effected the agriculturist in common with the
trading and manufacturing interests. of the country.
• The effect of the Bill had not only been to reduce the
income of the landlord, the profits of the tenant, and
the wages of the labourer, but it had deprived them
of such a proportion of their respective incomes as
materially to interfere with their comforts. He un-
derstood that, owing to a late partial rise its the price
. of corn, it was expected that the distresses of the
• agriculturalists would be shortly at an end ; but
nothing could he more futile than such expectation.
In consequence of the increased value of the-currency,
. the price of corn fell in proportion. • Rods the Ist of
January in this year, to the 17th of May, the average
vice of wheat hid been but 465. per quarter; the
average price of barley during the same period 355.
a price quite as low as the average of the fifty years
which had preceded the late war. -1ie1793 the price
of barley was 30s. in the present year it was only
355. notwithstanding that the quantity predated last
season did not exceed two thirds of in average crop.
13f the Act of 1819, the total Mumma of the standing'
income of the country had been greatly -reduced ;
and he would maintain that the amount of taxation
ought to be in proportion to the amount oithe money
income of the country. Taxation had incyeased, while
the money price cf produce had cletereaste- The an-
nual income capital of Great Britain might be taken
at 40,000,0001. and that of Ireland at 10,000,0001.
braking in the whole 50,000,0001. .But in order to
:hew the total amount of the value of the produce of
tile land, it would be necessary to multiply that sum
by, four, which would produce 200'000o0001. Now
ten per cent. takewfrom that income, by decreasing
it in any way, would of course =Om to &reduction
of .20,000,0001. which would have the same effect as
if 20,000,0001. were added to our titration: But he'
underrated the loss to the country by. the Act of 1819
at ten per cent.—he was sure it was.neit less than SO
per cent.—for he saw no probability that the average
price of wheat shall ever again exceed 355. per quar-
ter. He therein found the reduction of the income of
the country in the decreased rental of the landlord—,
• the profits of the farmer—the wages of the labourer,
and the other expenses to which produce was sub-
ject. Taking that seduction at :.30 per cent. we
should then find that the income of the country had
been lessened by a sum of 60,000,0001. Tltat.reduc‘,j
tion of property had a direct influence upon taxation,
for it decreased the power of consuming .exciseable I