Star.
London, England, 1823-02-27 00:00:00

tency. He could not conceive howl 2s. was to be a pro-
tection to oar agriculture under presentcircumstances.
31r. HUSKISSON wished for a speedy deliverance
from this debate. He defended the Agricultural' Re-
port; as being that of the whole House, since it had
been adopted by the House. He did not mean to enter
into a di-cossron on the lemis,ion of taxation, but I
he could not agree that the reduction of the Tax on'.
• Candles, would be very beneficial to the labourer,
since it was only one penny per lb. The Tax on
Winnows was not put upon cottages of six windows,
or less; nor v. as there any House -Tax on tenements
'Oa a- year rent, or less. He could not follow the
Honourable 'Member for Wiltshire, through his cal-
octilation of the reduction of 18 per cent. out of 67;
but he contended, that the ,reduction of taxes men-.
tioned by the Honourable Member, would as soon
and as directly relieve the Manufacturers as it would
the Agriculturists. Ile was glad to hear from Han.
:Members, that they were not for any higher prices
Hof Corn; but he was astonished to hear two of
. them wish for no importation of foreign Corn under
any circumstances. He did not think, that at present,
there wits. any chance that an alteration in the Corn
Laws could be discussed with anything like temper.
Interests were too conflicting, and 'in a state of irri-
tation, which he could wish to see set at rest.—
fly the C•immiL.lee on the Corn Laws, Gentlemen
were convinced that monopoly was not always profit,
nor restriction always a protection to the agricul-
turist. It also established, that the grower of corn,
in England, was entitled to protection only equal to
the mist den. which bore directly upon him. The Re-
po, t proceeded upon that principle, which received
the sanction of the majority of the Committee. The
second Committee went upon the principle of miti-
gating the severity of the Act of 1815; and the only
objections to it were, that they did rot carry the pro-
tecting duties high enough, He mentioned these
things as reasons why, at present, they should not
attempt to alter the exi,ting.Corn Livia. They must
• prepare themselves gradually for a measure of a more
unexceptionable nature. He believed we had seen
the noist of the low prices, and they must rise with
the price of manufactures. By looking wholly to our j
own supply, we might again be involved in that
state from which we had just emerged. He should
only weary the attention of the House by going fur-
ther into the subject, and though he agreed with the
Hon. Member in all his reasonings, he did not think
the present was the proper time for discussing the
question. A moderate annual importation ,would be
the best regulator of the prices at home. He hoped
the motion would be withdrawn.
,Ir. CURWEN, in explanation, said he had spoken
of the amount of relief to be afforded by the repeal
of the Tallow Tax, on the, supposition of its being
largely increased to the consumer over and above the
amount imposed by the Government. -
Mr. BENETT explained, and said that he had
been anxious to shew that relief could only be expected
from diminished taxation. He did not wish for high•
prices, hut that the farmer might be able to subsist'
on low ones.
Mi. RICARDO said, that all who bad spoken after
his H.m. ienu, had in fact argued in favour of his
motion. His Hon. Friend. had made his motion to
prevent the fluctuation of prices that had formerly
taken place; but he thought his Hon. Friend had not
Room far enough, and did not seem to have a very
definite idea of a fixed price. By the duty operating
constantly, we should have security against a very
high price. He thought the price had been fixed too
high at 80s. He should propose 70s. as the price at
which the system should begin to operate. He could
not agree with the arguments of the Member for
Cumherlaad (Mr. Curwen), and he could not under-
itand the calculations of the Member for Wilts (Mr.
Bawl—those calculations seemed to bins to be
wholly unfounded. The grower of the corn was
affected both favourably and. unfavourably by the
state of taxation. He hoped his Hon, Friend would
not withdraw his motion. The principles of the Ho-
' nourable Mover had a tendency to*dispel much delu-
sion ; and be (Mr. Ricardo) would not in the situation
of his Hon. Friend withdraw the motion. He was
an advocate for a price that would fairly remunerate
the grower.
111-r. WODEHOUSE, in explanation said, he ad-
hered to the belief, that an average price of 61s.
would satisfy the landed interest.
Mr. ATTWOOD said, that the allusion to the
state of H 'Hand by the Hon. Mover, did not apply to
the state of this country. In this country a high
price of Corn had co-existed with a great increase
of the Revenue, and a great consumption on the
part of the People. In 1795, the price of Corn had
been 775. the quarter, and had that price continued,
there would have been a great defalcation of the Re-
venue, and the People must have been reduced to
the greatest distress ; but in following years, though
the price had risen to 100,120, and 140 s. yet the con-
sumption was great, and the Revenue flourished ;
that had been owing to the greater quantity of money
that was then circulated in the country.
Mr. MONCK was in favour of this motion. He
did not agree with the Member for Portarlington that
all the Taxes could be thrown on the consumer.
Colonel WOOD stated, that the present Corn Laws
had been-the result of the most laborious researches,
and any attempt to alter them must, in the present
state of the country, be productive of much evil, by
unsettling all that had been established.
Mr. HUME approved of the motion. He should
himself divide the House.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE was adverse to the agita-
tion of the question at the present moment.
Mr. WHITMORE replied. lie would not press the
House to a division himself; but should any other
Member do so, he must vote for his own motion.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was of opinion that the system
of the Corn Laws should be altered. There was no
safety for the country, except by opening the ports
under certain regulations.
Mr. LEYCESTER said, that, to reduce the cost of
production, taxation must be previously reduced.
The I loose then divided—For the Motion as—Against it 73
—Majority 5,-Adjourncd at Half-past Teu otlock.

On Tuesday 141 the State Lottery was drawn.
when No. 1,467, a Prise of £16,000, No. 1,305, a Prize of
d 2300, and No. 4,048, a Prize of £2OO, welt! ail Sold in ShareA,
f+yJ. and J. Sistwitronv, No. 37, Cornbill; No. 11, Holborn;
and No. 38, Haymarket. The lurtunate Holders may receive
their MOlll.l on demand.—Tickets and Shares for a New Lot-
tery, containing Three Prizes of .010,000, and 80 other Capitals,
All Mosey, to begin drawing on the 9th April, will be oa Sale
.1.1 a few days.