The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-05-31 00:00:00

place till souse special grounds of improvement were
Made out. It watt a fact, that frauds might operate
as frequently in favour of the agriculturist as against
him, and there had been a recent instance of it at
Liverpool, where a person had been prosecuted, whose
object waa not to raise the price to the prejudice of the
agriculturist, but to lower it. But it was said that
foreign corn was smuggled into the country; he Lad,
however, not heard of it himself, nor did be believe
that any information had been received of such t
fraud, though an alarm had been raised about foreign
corn imported as native produce from the Isle of Mani
and from Guernsey and Jersey. It had nut come t
his knowledge that any foreign corn had been im-
ported from those islands, but a small quantity of
native produce had always been furnished by them to
the London market. But while he decidedly opposed
any alteration in the law itself, he should not at the
same time say, that there might not he grounds of cb- •
jection to the manner in which it was executed. I
that view the subject might go before a Committee
haps with advantage. It might, fur instance, be prom r
to ascertain whether the objection with regard to the cp-
pointment of inspectors was well founded. Magistraus
were empowered to make such appointment., and they
were to blame if they did not select proper persco.s.
Another point of objection had been urged with regard
to warehouses for foreign corn, which it was ~aid ...-
ways kept the agriculturist in a state of alarm and
anxiety. But what difference did it make whether.
such warehouses were on this side of the channel or tro
the other? For if they were not tolerated in Engle,*
they would very soon be transferred to the nations of
the Continent, and the coast of Holland would have
that granary which lately stood on the coast of Essex ;
the only difference being that a number of persoas nos
employed here would he thrown out of bread, and ;•..i
important part of the capital of the country removed .0
a foreign land.—(lleac, hear:)---He had already stoud
enough to show that the present distress was the con-
*ripener of the univitoral state in which a war of Y 5
years duration had placed the country ; and conclud-c1
with observing, that nu legislative measures could afford
relief in the instance in question, and that he could not,
consistently with what he owed to himself, to the Go-
vernment, and to the country, accede to the motion n.w
before the House.

Mr. Wairreast, in a low tone of voice, spoke at
some length in support of the motion. lie observed,
that the county which he had the honour to represe”t,
though from its resources better enabled to bear s..s
tress than most others, was still obliged to yield to the
pressure under which the agricultural interest labourei.
Their capital was decreasing, and the value of the pro-
duce being inadequate, they were obliged to pay thrir
rents out of that capital. Yet lie wished to be under-
stood as disclaiming any intention to secure what w:.s
termed a remunerating price for the farmer ; all that was
desired was, that this country should stand independent
of foreign nations for the necessaries of life, by allowing-
the agricultutist a security against the importation id
foreign corn, till the home price should rise to -Niels a
height as to indicate the necessity d a supply. Tlve
Act, however, of 1815, was not sufficient to call fat its
British spirit or British industry. Thera was no seen-
my given by it to the agriculturist.. The lion. Meinl.er
then took a retrospective view of the price of eons 'affs •
far hack as the year 1773, and contended, as the ay.., -
rage price was 113 shillings for the in years preceding the
year 1815. whets the Corn Bill pa.bed, that SO shillings,
the price fixed by it, could not be an adequate protection
to the farmer. He denied that this was a measure to
bolster up the prices of commodities, but it was a Oiti-
sure of necessity, limier the circumstances of the country.
Mr. HARINO was one of those who opposed the Corn
Laws when they were under the consideration of the
!house ; hut he took some credit for himself, as well as
for the other tletitlesnen who opposed those laws, that
they never made any attempt to disturb thesystem since
it had been established. lie would willingly go* into
the Committee, if he thought there was any chance of
the result being a reduction in the protecting pricei of
corn. But this' motion was altogether of so vague a na-
ture, that be could not anticipate what the effect might
be if it were successful. Ilia lion. Friend near him (Sir.
Western) stated his opinion openly, and 'with that
manly candour which belonged to his general character,
that his object was to raise the protection price. What
the average of that price should he he did not stet,•
though he threw out au idea that it might be about 93..,
as he referred to that as the protecting price at a forme.-
period. But his Hots. Friend seemed to have forgotten
that, on account of the great alteration in the take of
the currency, the price of 7/41. now, was as great a pri.'e
as 935. then.—(flear, hear '4—'l !sat the agriculturists
felt distress could not he doubted, but the manufacturers
suffered also. The farmer suffered because the
utann-
factorer was not able to consume his productions ; and.
on theotlier hand, the manufacturer suffered because the
farmer rould not consume his commodities.—(llelr,
hear!)—ln a petition presented from Birmingham, it was
stated, indeed, that the consumption of cattle in that
district was reduced from 58,000t0 46,000 bead of cattle.
No 'kali% could be entertained of the fact, that the con-
sumption of the higher classes of agricultural produce had
diminished,and the neceasaryconsequeuce was adecreased
price fur those commodities. But from what did that
decrease come ?—Csitloubtedly. from the people not
benig able to consume; they could not afford it, and
therefore it %vas clear that Use distress of one class was
felt liv the other. and that they all had a common inte-
rest. With respect to the importation of foreign corn,
the petitioners argued as if foreign corn were actually
interfering with their own growth, whereas the law, as
it now stood, operated as a restriction upon that impor-
tation, for it heal MOs. as the price at which foreign
corn should be admitted, a price which, in fact, excluded'
• it. The question now was whether that limitation
• should be raised. The. Hon. Member 'here alluded to
the fact, that the French Weenie:vet in tie beginning
of the season having reason to apprehend a scarcity,.
purchased up corn at a time it was 505., a price which,
in that country, was an Wit-alias of -scarcity. Look-
ing at our own country in relatiow-to foreign 'countries,
he could not think that it was in a tiftwation'sb much
more prosperous than they were, as ti bear it rice so
much higher than they paid. livery dint of pertains in
this country felt themselves by the eha of circling-
. stances obliged to look cloiely into their lavenders, and
to adopt an economical mode of living. flai the present
' petitioners sought to resist, or tq fruseratentst *solo-
tion of economy; in endeavouring as obtaistProfection
for the landed interests, they only endeavothet to pre.
vent themselves from suffering that debater oc_rerenue
i which was felt by all the mat of the conitittleffy.—(lfeas,
hear!)—i f the larded
proprietors thought that they could
keep up the same rents as formerly, tiloy..trould 6nd
themrolves very muds mistaken, and every, effort of this
kind, instead of improving, would bring tbeM down !till
lower. He alluded- to the manner in which tit petitions
upon. the subject were got up thrimils the country.
amid said that a similar artifice was used fee thattsvpuse.
! as had been practised with regard ter the' petitions
which, some Sessions ago, were poured in upon she
House fur universal sugrage sod anno.apailiatnents.—