Star.
London, England, 1828-04-30 00:00:00

posing the price to rise to ninety shillings, as it had
before now, and let the fixed duty of ten shillings be
addei to it, what would be the result? Why, that it
could not be maintained. It was useless, then, to le-
gislate on such a principle as on it period of extremity.
fhe clamour of the suffering population would
compel the Government to give up the duty. But
the Honourable Member might say, that in a period
of scarcity the Executive might be invested with the
power of remitting the duty ; but how was it consistent
to leave such a power to the Executive by a Bill, whose
object was to take all 4ontroul over the matter from the
Executive? For his paft, he would not admit that the
Government ought to be allowed to interfere in regu-
lating the duty, nor was the House prepared to admit
such s principle? If the House should resolve that the
time had come when it was proper to deprive the agri
culturists of the high prohibitory prices, that would be
the time also to give their protection, and this would be
effected by adopting a fluctuating duty ; for. with such
a system, the occurrence of a high price would allow
foreign importation, and in a period of depression, the
agriculturist would be supported against a competition
that would otherwise overwhelm him. Fur these tea-

sons he would oppose a fixed duty.
Lord HOWICK condemned the notion of securing

to any particular class what were called remunerating
prices. He remembered a Petition presented to that
House, which stated that the land occupied by the pe-
titioner was poor, that the climate was unfavourable,
and that the produce obtained was precarious. It they
were to seatre remunerating prices to such patties,
others might as well at once build hot-houses over the
country and grow sugar canes—(Hear, and a laugh.)—
And what must be the consequences of acting upon the
system of remunerating prices ? Why, when this coun-
try was destitute of corn, and applied for a supply to
foreign countries, they would turn round and say—No;
when we had plenty of corn for the market you would
not adm.t us to trade with you, and now we will not.

it
Mr. W. BARING said was evident the House could
protect the home market against competition with
foreign growers of corn, but they should recollect that
they could not protect it against compettion ss ith the
consumers of foreign corn. The present law would
prove useless in operation while the price of labour was
less in foreign countries. The Hon. Gentleman here
went into a detailed account of the various historical c.r.

cumstances in which a tax on corn had been imposed in
Holland and England,-and of the injurious consequences
of it ; yet the agriculturists were not such valuable
supporters of the State as had been asserted, for it
was by a tax on capital that England had been able
to carry on the late war. Scarcity was ■n attendant
curse of war, yet nsw, after twelve years of peace, the
House was passing a Bill which would produce in peace
that curse of war—a scarcity. A temporary measure
was but necessary after the war before a sudden transi-
tion from a bad system to an opposite one; but at this
day, when English capital was united to foreign coun-
tries by projects for cutting canals and forming rivers,
and such national schemes, and when the labouring
classes of this country were suffering for want of em-
ployment, was it a time to introduce a measure calcu-
lated to drive English cap tal to foreign countries, and
then, at the same time, to inflict high prices on a popu-
lation which .could not afford to pay them? The aris-
tocracy may support the measure by their influence for
their own interest, but he was convinced they could
never make it operative. On this ground he should
oppose the motion.
Mr. ()MAY CAVE contetided, that though the
objections to the present resolutions were only the same
that were urged against Mr. Canning's Bill la-t year,
that was no reason that though Mr. Canning's Bi.l was
incapable of doing any good, the proposed resolutions
might not do much mischief. He had voted for it,
through respect for the memory of Mr. Canning. As
to, difference in operative results between a fixed duty
and an ad valorem duty in times of scarcity, he could
not see any, for under such circumstances the Govern.
ment would have the remedy in their own hand., by
admitting foreign corn. This same objection to a fixed
duty applied with equal force to the resolutions, as,
when the price should reach 61.5. no Government would
dare to keep up the duty on a starving population. He
should vote for the amendment.
Mr. IRVING showed that there were Corn Laws in
every country—Portugal, Spain, and France. There
was nothing in the situation of England to exempt her
from a Corn Law. Much had been said about regulat-
ing the duty by the price of labour, but that would not
be a just standard, as the price of labour was only 16th
of the value of manufactures. Skill, machkery, capital,
and the advantages arising to commerce from the
insular situation of the country, made up the difference.
Although for labour there was not a sufficiently im-
portant standard wherewith the rate of duty should
be regulated, he thought the proposed Resolutions pre-
ferable to the Amendment, and should give them his
support, as they were capable of satisfying all interests.
Lord MILTON said, as he had not hitherto taken
part in the discussions which had taken place on this
question, he was desirous to avail himself of the present
opportunity of doing so. He was the more desirous to
address the House now, after the speech of the Honour.
able Gentleman (Mr. Irving), whose sentiments and
opinions conveyed to his mind a very accurate descrip-
tion of the measure recommended by Government.
Last year he (Lord Milton) gave a sort of support to
the Resolutions brought forward by his Majesty's Go-
vernment, not because he thought that measure a per-
fect one to be adopted, but because it contained the
principle of establishing a trade in corn. He could not
forbear from expressing his surfs' ise on such an occasion
as the present, at de absence of a Right Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), whom he expected to take
a lively interest in the present discussion.
Mr. WARBURTON here intimated that the Right
Hon. Gentleman was absent from indisposition.
Lord MILTON resumed. He certainly was not
aware of the cause just intimated to him, which he re-
gretted. But to return to the question. He could not
refrain from the expression of his surprise that Hon.
Gentlemen, with the view, as they conceived, of pro
testing the agricultural interest, should have been en-
gaged last night in dividing the House upon proposi-
tions for obtaining an additional duty of one shilling on
barley and on other species of grain, down even to peas
and beans (Hear, hear!) In their attempts thus made
to advance, as they thought, the agricultural intetests,
they were,in his opinion,both pecuniarily and politic illy
in error. He deprecated this endeavour to give an
undue ascendancy and protection to agricultural pro-
duce. It was an vain that those Gentlemen dis
claimed that such was their object in high flown
speeches. When he put their words in one scale,
and their actions in the other, he could not give
them credit for proceeding with the disinterestedness to
which they laid claim—(Hear, hear.)—lt was in vain
for the landlord to deity that their interests were im-
mediately concerned in this question. It had been said
that high prices were for the benefit not so much of the
landlord as of the farmer, who stood between the land.
lord and the consumer; but then it must be obvious to