Star.
London, England, 1822-05-09 00:00:00

Mr. BROUGHAM tbouglit that it eroold be expe,,
dient in the House to support the motion. Its ten-1
dency would not be to prevent die consideration of
the question of relief to the farmer ; and he heartily
supported it, because it went to establish a most
essential principle, and one In which all theic pro-
ceedings ought to be founded—the necessity of a.large
reduction of the taxation. If the Resolution were car-
ried, it might occasion the delay of one day, and tor
that delay there would be ample reward.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed, if
the Howe agreed to the Amendment, such . a pro-
ceeding would sanction the opinion tbat there ought
to be a reduction of taxation to the amount of at least
twenty millions—(Cries of Hear, hear, and No, no).
And what less would that be than sanctioning the
confiscation of much of the property of the country?
if that were not the meaning of the motion, he wished
Gentlemen would say what it was that they really
tlid mean ; but he was sure, after the speech with
which the motion was introduced, Ott the country
*mild put such construction on the Resolution. The
adoption of such a Resolution would have a dan-
gerous and ittinotts effect.
Mr. TIERNEY denied that this motion bad the re-
volutionary tendency imputed to it by the Noble Mar-
quis on the other side. It only went to establish a
principle; and he thought, if due notice had been
given, it would be carried. It was wrong to say that
the object of it was to take off twenty millions of taxes,
for it em.,. aced no such proposition. He should cer-
taiuly vote for it; and in doing so, he was not con-
scious of acting in any respect in opposition to the
interest of the public creditor.
_ _

Mr. BRIGHT thought that the greatest possible
reduction of taxation ought to be effected.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
decidedly of opinion, that the motion involved a ruin-
ous and revolutionary principle.
Mr. PAULET thought that the motion was alto-
gether of an impracticable nature, if it contemplated
a reduction to the amount stated.

Mr. BENETT (of Wiltshire) felt himself called
upon to support the motion, because he always looked
for the greatest relief from the reduction of taxation.
Mr. T. WILSON was anxious that taxes should be
diminished to the utmost possible extent; but he could
not support this motion, because he saw it was
brought forward under circumstances that were ruin-
ous to the interests of the country.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a
division having taken place, the numbers were—
Ayes 57
Noes
Majority against the Motion —B3
When strangers were re-admitted, the House had
resolved itself into the Committee, and
Mr. BENETT (Wiltshire) was speaking.—The
Act which had restored cash payments had virtually
added not only to the taxes, but to the private debts
of every individual debtor. He thought it would yet
be necessary for them to retrace their steps, or the
country could never recover from its present depres-
sion. It was said that the present Corn Bill had
g..en the Agriculturists a monopoly; but he could
never discover that it had benefited the landed inte-
rest. It indeed prevented the importation of grain
fin a time, till the price rose to eighty shillings; but
when the ports opened, it subjected the country to an
inundation of foreign grain from %.hich it could never
recover. Whenever the price of corn should again
rise to eighty shillings, besides throwing open the
ports, the present Bill would cause foreign corn to
the amount of a million of quarters to be thrown on
the. country. He therefore contended that a protect-
ing duty on foreign corn was necessary; and he could
not conceive on what grounds this could be opposed
by those who were friendly to a free trade in grain,
and who wished its price to be low. What they had
to du then was to ascertain the price at which the
protec:ing duty could he equitably imposed. To de-
termine this, it was necessary that they should inquire
into the cost of productions in other countries, and
act on the best information they could procure on this
subject. Mr. Sully, in his evidence, had said corn
from the interior of Germany cost 2/.165. the quarter.
—:" From Poland," several Members called out.j—
Ile was sorry that he had been wrong, but it made
no difference to his argument, and he would there-
fete say from Poland. He had had a calculation
furnished, which made the price at which corn could
he brought into this country much lower. The price
at Memel, in January last, was 335. 10d. This he
thought he had a right to take as a very high price.
To the authority of Mr. Solly, who was a very re-
spectable man, but who, as an importer of corn, had
an interest in the question, he thought it but fair to
oppose an authority of equal respectability—that of
a farmer. His informant stated that that might be
obtained for 32i. which Mr. Solly believed would
cost 565. He should take the price above the medium
if he took it at 345. To this, adding for freight and
insurance 4s. for landing and warehousing in London
2s. and 15 per cent. for the merchant's profit, the
price, including all charges, would amount when it
came here to 675. which was exactly the amount paid
for it in 1792. Mr. Solly had said nothing about
over measure. But another honest man (all the par-
ties of whom he had occasion to speak were honest
men) had explained to him what was meant by over
measure. This was the difference between foreign
and English measures,which, he understood, did more
than cover the freight and insurance. He then went
over a series of calculations, shewing the expense at-
tendant on raising corn in England. It was admit-
ted by the Hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr.
Ricardo), that the British farmer was entitled to pro-
tection to the amount of those duties which he paid,
and which the foreign farmer did not pay. Then
he shewed to amount to 11. 10s. Bd. the quarter, and
he only proposed to call for a protecting duty of 245.
He wal convinced that the people of England could
tr.! fed cheaper by the farmer than by the merchant.
This was proved by the experiment made for 52 years
in the last century, when this country exported corn.
During that period corn was cheaper than it had been
at any other time. By encouraging the cultivation
of the soil, the people would be made more happy
and con-if-enable than if they were detached from
agricultural pursuits to become manufacturers. The
latter course might add temporarily to the wealth of
the country, but would not contribute to its perma-
nent security. There were no Petitions now on the
table against protecting the agricultural interest, and
he was sure that the Public generally wished that it
should be relieved. What he desired was, that that