trary, that it was calculated rather to make 80s. the maximum price; and so the event had proved. But as to the observation of the honourable gentleman, he could only say, that if the bill in question had failed to produce a price of 80s. to the farmer, it had failed to do that which, in truth, it never was intended to do. He did say, that the advantage contemplated was that of removing from the farmer the terror of an influx of foreign corn at all times, which it was hoped would lead to such an extension of capital to be employed in agricultural objects -he did not mean to say an unwise or extravagant extension-but such an increased cultivation of land, that the quantity of corn raised in this, country should be adequate to its consumption. It was strange, that those who expected that the corn-bill was to produce a price of 80s., and declared that the agriculturists were ruined because it had not done so, would find that the price in the last five years averaged not less than 78s. 10d. If they looked at the imports of corn from the year 1792 to the year 1812, they would find the average importation (of wheat) to have been, as nearly as possible, during those 20 years, rather less than 500,000 quarters annually; and it so happened that the average price, for the same period, was about 78s. 6d. It did It did therefore appear, that during the last five years the annual average price had been much the same with that of the other period he had mentioned. If, then, the average price of corn, taking it from 1793 to 1812-a term of 19 years-had been sufficient to induce the employment of additional capital in agriculture, and to place the farmer, in point of his price, in that situation which they must all wish to see him stand in; and he, in common with overy other person pos

VOL. XIII. PART I.

sessing landed property, need not desire to see him situated otherwise than beneficially if, he said, that price had been sufficient to enable him to cultivate his ground with spirit, and with advantage to himself and to its owners, he really saw no ground for contending that it was not calculated to produce, during the last five years, something like the same beneficial results. They had heard a great deal of the existing distress as connected with this measure in some degree, but how could that distress be possibly charged upon the corn laws? No foreign corn had been imported since February 15, 1819, and he supposed there was scarcely a quarter of foreign corn now in a private warehouse. However low the price of corn might now be, he conceived that it was impossible to change that present low price by legislative enactments. The honourable member (Mr Holme Sumner,) in his opening, had said, that the petitioners asked for no specific remedy. He hoped that they did not: it gave him great satisfaction to find, that the specific remedy, which every agriculturist had been told was the only one that could save him, had not been touched upon by

his honourable friend-he meant that enormous, that monstrous, that outrageous proposition, the laying on a permanent duty of 40s. per quarter upon corn imported. On the subject of averages, he was convinced that a great delusion prevailed. He had particularly examined the different methods which it was proposed to substitute, and had ascertained that none of them would make any sensible difference. He would not object, however, to an inquiry into this subject, as there might prevail, he believed, some local abuses. The best persons were not always chosen for the office of inspectors; for instance, in

F

one of the Welsh counties a lady had been appointed. If any measure could be proposed, which would render the existing law less liable to abuse, he, for one, would give it his support. But he really felt that he should abandon the duty which he owed to his country, to that house, and to the character of the office with which he was connected, if he did not protest against every change in a law which, while it could extend no relief to this class of the community in the present instance, was calculated to occasion much general inconvenience and injury by being unnecessarily altered.

Mr Western, notwithstanding his indisposition, made a short speech in support of the motion. He insisted particularly on the dependence of the manufacturing interest upon the agricultural. It might be proved, by fair reasoning, supported by facts, that the depressed state of agriculture was the primary cause of the distresses of the manufacturer; in all cases the farmer first had been embarrassed, and the difficulties of the manufacturer had followed as a consequence. He need refer no farther back than to 1815 and 1816 for proof of what he had advanced; while, in the beginning of that period, wheat was 120s. per quarter, the manufacturers were flourishing; and when the price fell to 65s. or 70s., then they began bitterly to complain. In 1817 it was known that agriculture began to revive, and with it, of course, the manufacturing districts felt the alleviation.

Mr Baring, a leading representative of the commercial interest, expressed his high satisfaction with the view which had been taken of the subject by Mr Robinson. He himself had opposed the corn bill in the first instance, but had said no more on the subject since, being convinced of the general impolicy of disturbing the

system on which a great country moves and acts. It had now proved totally inadequate to its objects, and had shewn the impossibility of putting a permanent artificial price on a necessary of life by any legislative experiments. In what situation would the poorer, the industrious and labouring classes, find themselves, if the price of corn were now at 40 or 50 per cent higher than it actually was? His honourable friend (Mr Western) had not stated to what extent he would wish the price to be carried; but what, he would again ask, must become of those multitudes, those beehives of population, that were to be found in our manufacturing towns, if any considerable addition were to be made to that price? Already we stood at double the price of the rest of the world, but with this some honourable gentlemen were not satisfied would they then wish it to be trebled? It was true that the farmer was now suffering; so was the manufacturer, and indeed every class of the community. His honourable friend seemed to think that the cause of all the evil was, that the farmer could not purchase from the manufacturer; but so it might be represented the other way, that the manufacturer was not able to deal with the farmer, or find consumption for his produce. It had been recently shown to the house by a great proprietor at Birmingham (Mr Spooner,) that there had been a falling off from 56,000 to 48,000 cattle in the consumption of that town. The great decrease in the demand for landed produce, arose from the inability of people to pay for it. He admitted that there was much suffering, particularly among the class of smaller landed proprietors, but conceived it was in vain to look for a remedy. Prices had been forced up, and they must inevitably come down.

Mr Frankland Lewis was inclined

to support the plan of a protecting duty, but on a principle opposite to that adopted by the agricultural leaders. He wished a duty moderate in amount, as a milder measure, and as affording less obstruction to trade than an absolute prohibition. The mode in which protection was at present given was very inconvenient. He conceived that the adoption of a prohibition was a worse course of proceeding, with reference to the protection of the agriculturist, than a positive duty. The existing system operated as a prohibition to a certain extent; and, as it so operated, it must occasion a sudden alternation from a prohibition to an unlimited supply a state of things the most mischievous that could be imagined. The country was not now in a situation, with regard to cultivation, including rent, perfectly dif ferent from that in which it stood in 1815, when the corn law passed. He believed the expense of cultivating a farm was diminished nearly one-third. This he stated as the result of inquiry; and he was in the hearing of those who could contradict him if he erred. If the fact wanted corroboration, it was to be found in the manifestos of the agriculturists themselves, where the reduced price of labour was stated over and over again. That, however, was not all; there was likewise the reduced price of horses, and of almost every thing necessary for farming. This created a very essential difference. Then what was the result? It was this-that those who had invested capital when the prices were high, must be nominally losers at this time; but that, if any persons now invested fresh capital in agricultural pursuits, they would stand at a charge one-third less than they formerly could do. The protection recommended in 1815 proceeded on the expense of cultivation, including rent. That expense was now every way diminished.

They could not shut their eyes to this fact, and declare that that which was right in 1815 ought, under very diffement circumstances, to be considered right now. He could not but persuade himself that the time was not far distant when it would be found necessary for them, in some degree, to retread their steps, and to adapt the protection to the altered state of expense; when, instead of increasing that protection, they would feel a sincere desire and an anxious wish to examine this question, with a view to the alteration and amendment of the existing system.

Lord Milton generally concurred in Mr Robinson's views, but could not agree in the expediency of that limited inquiry to which he had shewn a disposition to assent. If there was an inquiry at all, it ought, he conceived, to be on the broadest and most extensive scale, and to include the employment of the people, the means of subsistence, trade, the currency, and all the means of national subsist

ence.

Mr Curwen was for a fair and full inquiry, which should take into consideration the general interests of the community, and the mode of equali zing the burdens upon each class. He wished the fundholders to bear the public burdens equally with the landholder, and would therefore be inclined to support a modified income tax, instead of the taxes on salt, leather, soap, &c. which pressed directly on the poor.

Mr Ricardo opposed the bill, and all restrictions on the corn trade in general, upon those principles of political economy which he had so profoundly studied. It became the legislature, not to look at the partial losses which would be endured by a few, who could not cultivate their land profitably, at a diminished remunerative price, but to the general in

terests of the nation ; and, connected with this, he would look to the profits of capital. He would rather have a great quantity of produce at a low rate, than a small quantity at a high. The right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr Robinson) appeared inconsistent, when he denied a committee to inquire into the more important question, and yet agreed to one for discussing such trifling matters as striking the average. This was not what the petitioners wanted: they declared that they could grow as much as the home market required, and they demanded a monopoly of it. The soil of the country could produce as much as the consumption of the country, but could it be done as cheaply as in other countries? We might as well grow beet-root for the purpose of producing sugar, because it was possible, as grow grain sufficient for home consumption, because it could be done. With respect to economy, nothing could be said in favour of restriction. But it was argued that, in war, dependence on foreign countries for supplies of corn would be most dangerous. But an interruption to such commerce would be more disastrous, if possible, to the exporting than to the importing country. When the supply became greater than the demand, the effect was more injurious with respect to corn than any other article. It could not be pre

served for a more favourable season.

What then must be the situation of a country who found their exports in corn returned on their own market? The distress, agricultural and commercial, in this country, was not onetenth of such a case. Besides, were we to be at war with all the world at the same time?-This would be the happiest country in the world, and its progress in prosperity would be beyond the power of imagination to conceive, if we got rid of two great

evils-the national debt and the corn laws.

The motion was supported by Mr Bennett and Mr Coke, and opposed by Mr Huskisson, Mr Ellice, who moved the previous question, and by Lord Castlereagh. But the speech which excited most interest, was that of Mr Brougham, who espoused the side of the question opposite to that which might have been expected from his views of political economy, and his adherence to the popular cause. It appeared to him that it would be indecent to turn a deaf ear to a motion founded on the petitions of such a numerous body as the agriculturists of this country. Entertaining some doubts as to the present motion, he supported it, because there was no other before him. His honourable friend (Mr Ricardo) seemed to argue this question as if he had dropped from another planet-as if this were a land of the most perfect liberty of tradeas if there were no taxes-no drawbacks-no bounties-no searcherson any other branch of trade but that of agriculture; as if, in this Utopian world of his creation, the first measure of restriction ever thought on was that on the importation of corn; as if all classes of the community were alike—as if all trades were on an equal footing; and that, in this new state, we were called upon to decide the abstract question, whether or not there should be a protecting price for corn? But we were not in this condition-we were in a state of society where we had manufacturers of almost every description, protected in every way, even to criminal enactments, to prevent the raw material from going out of the country, in order thereby to assist the native manufacturer. He complained of the little regard which was generally paid to the agricultural, in comparison of the manufacturing interests. Sir Robert

Walpole had compared the agriculturists to a flock of sheep, and said that, like sheep, they were shorn without repining but the complaints of the commercial and trading classes, when any thing affected them, he had compared to the noise of another animal, which, out of regard to that respectable body, he would not name. The circumstances in which the country was placed were such, that even poor land was eagerly sought and diligently cultivated. It was hedged, and ditched, and improved so as to become the depositary of a large portion of British capital-that capital had been so employed this land was now under cultivation-it contained the capital, he might almost say the life, of the cultivators-and it would be as reasonable, under such circumstances, to refer back to the period he had mentioned, or to say that they should go for their grain to Poland, where the serf cultivated the soil for his lord-because at Poland it could be got cheaper than they could now produce it. If the trade were now thrown open, the inevitable consequence would be, that, in the next season, 7 or 800,000 of acres would be thrown out of cultivation, and those dependent on them out of employment. Was there any man bold enough to look such a difficulty as this in the face?

The question being called for at a late hour, the original motion was carried by a majority of 150 to 101.

This result caused universal surprise, even in the supporters of the measure, and general dismay in its opponents.

Lord Castlereagh deplored and lamented from the bottom of his heart the decision of the House. So little had he anticipated such a result, that, being asked by several persons whether he thought there was such a difference of opinion as would make it

necessary for them to remain in the house till the division, he had told them that nothing was so unlikely, from the temper which the House had evinced during the debate, as an effective support of the motion. If he had thought that it would have had so many supporters, there would have been a very different attendance of members, and a very different result from that which had taken place.

On the motion of Mr Baring, the nomination of the committee was adjourned to the following day.

This delay passed not unimproved by the opponents of the motion. The vote indeed once passed, could not be rescinded; but Mr Robinson, following up an idea originally thrown out by him, proposed, that the inqui ries of the committee should be directed solely to the mode of striking the averages. This motion was supported at considerable length by Lord Castlereagh. It was vehemently, indeed, opposed by Mr Brougham, who asked: Was the result of the debate last night no vote of the House? Right or wrong, he considered that by that vote they had pledged themselves. Ministers found themselves in a minority where they had calculated upon a certain majority; and they, therefore, were now endeavouring to get rid of the result of a solemn debate by a sort of side-wind, by an unfair manœuvre. It was said that the agitation of the question was spreading an alarm through the country. He appealed to those gentlemen who were so much alarmed about alarms; to those whose terrors terrified the land; whose fears were excited at one time

about the price of bread, at another time about the price of bullion, and at another about the law of the land, as established-ever since 1815; at one time about this thing, at another about that he appealed to them on the present occasion. He called on