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 with out 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 la

mented 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 inquiries 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

them just to apply a little of their alarm to this subject; and he would ask them whether there were not just as solid grounds for that alarm about the effects which might follow the rejection of these petitions; it was, unfortunately, too much the fashion to cry up the distresses and the forbearance of the artisans alone, forgetting the claims of the more scattered, and no less meritorious, peasantryto fear the resentments of the one, because they were a more organized and more collected community than the other, who were more thinly spread over a larger surface. Unless their feelings were to be falsified, and themselves to be lessened in the eyes of the country, he thought that honourable gentlemen ought to consider what had occurred last night as a solemn discussion of the merits of a question, which was now sought to be got rid of without one tittle of argument beyond what had been endeavoured to be then sustained.

Notwithstanding the strength of this appeal, the fate of the question was from the first decided. The opponents of agricultural inquiry had mustered their strength, and Mr Robinson's limitation was voted by 251, while there were against it only 108, a considerably smaller number than had voted the night before for general inquiry. The possibility of any important change in the corn laws was thus evaded. Before the close of the session, the committee presented a report, which will be found in the Appendix, but upon which no legislative measure was founded.

The commerce of Great Britain occupied also, during this session, a large share of public attention. Those lights of political economy, which had shone so bright towards the close of the last century, and seemed to be guiding the nations into a more en larged and liberal system, had of late

been greatly dimmed. The doctrines which proved liberty to be essential to commercial prosperity, were not indeed absolutely denied, but they were represented as unfit for the purposes of practical regulation. The deadly enmities which reigned among the members of the European commonwealth, had led each into the habit of considering an injury done to another as equivalent to a benefit obtained for itself. Cool reflection and severe experience were now fast opening the eyes of the British public. Not only was it now generally admitted, that nations would gain most by freely opening their ports to each other; but it was even recognized, that though one side denied this reciprocity, the other would consult its advantage in not retaliating. Petitions from the cities of London and of Glasgow were laid before the House of Commons, in which the most liberal sentiments were expressed upon these subjects. It was in the House of Lords, however, that the discussion was carried on upon the most extended scale, being introduced by Lord Lansdowne, a nobleman early imbued with profound principles of commercial economy. On moving on the 26th of May for a committee of the Lords to inquire into the subject, he entered at large into the improvements of which it might be susceptible. He meant to confine the proposition he had to make, to the appointment of a committee on the foreign trade of the country. He had chosen this course, because he was convinced that any more extensive inquiry would only open an arena, into which every chivalrous political economist would has. ten to take his stand; into which every theory would be introduced, and where every opposing interest would have found a field of combat. In any committee of general inquiry, useful discussion would be impracticable,

endless contests would arise, and inquiries would be pursued without leading to any result. Nothing, how ever, could be farther from his intention, than to favour any one class or pursuit in preference to another. This indeed was impracticable, in conse→ quence of the intimate mutual dependence between them. The experience of the last ten years could not be thrown away on their lordships, and he trusted it would not on the country. In the year 1815, they had seen the distress of the agricultural body visited on the other interests of the community. They had afterwards found the distress of the manufacturing interest visited on the growers of corn and the raisers of every kind of agricultural produce. From these alternate visitations, who could fail to see that the order of nature had linked together all the interests of men in society? Commerce and manufactures had made the country what it was, and by them it must be maintained in the rank to which it had been raised. No axiom was more true than this that it was by growing what the territory of a country could grow most cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it could not produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degree of happiness was to be communicated to the greatest extent of population. He was aware that the question could not be considered in a mere abstract manner; that there were many prejudices to be removed, and many conflicting interests to be reconciled, before any improvement could be effected. Nations had been expending their capital instead of their revenue, and a numerous population had been called into existence by a demand for labour which no longer existed. The most obvious remedy was to create a demand for our labour and our manufactures; and the most obvious mode

of creating that demand, was to encou rage and to extend our foreign trade by removing some of those restrictions by which it was shackled. In looking towards such a relaxation, two things ought to be taken into consideration by their lordships: first, the necessity of raising our revenue; and, secondly, the justice and expediency of consulting those interests which were vested in our existing trade, on the faith of the continuance of the regulations under which it was now carried on. But those things were not to be lost sight of-they ought not to prevent changes which higher interests and a wiser policy demanded. They ought, in short, to recollect that liberty of trade should be the rule, and restraint only the exception. He would first of all venture to say, that there ought to be no prohibitory duties, as such-that where a manufacture could not be carried on, or a production raised, but under the protection of a prohibitory duty, that manufacture or that produce must be brought to market at a loss. The name of strict prohibition might therefore in commerce be got rid of altogether; but he did not see the same objection to protecting duties. He would even suggest a certain relaxation in the navigation laws, though not such as could justly give rise to any jealousy. He would propose to allow produce from all parts of Europe to be imported, without making it necessary that it should be altogether in English-built ships, or in ships belonging to the nation whence the produce comes. At present a vessel which had taken part of its cargo in a French port, and which afterwards had proceeded to a Flemish port for the remainder, could not enter a British port. All that he would propose would be to allow such a vessel to make good its assortment in different ports in Europe, and still to

have the right of entering this country. He would make one exception to this relaxation of the navigation laws he would not allow the importation of colonial produce in this manner. The third point to which he would advert, was one of no inconsiderable importance in itself, and of still greater consequence from the principle which it involved he meant an entire freedom of the transit trade. Whatever brought the foreign merchant to this country, and made it a general mart-a depot for the merchandise of the world, which might be done consistently with the levying of a small duty, was valuable to our trade, and enriched the industrious population of our ports. Such freedom of transit allowed of assortment of cargoes for foreign markets, and thus extended our trade in general. A duty of 15 per cent on the importation of foreign linens, was, during the war, thought necessary to protect the linen manufactures of Ireland. No injury resulted from that arrangement while we engrossed the commerce of the world; but now the case was altered, and many who were interested in the linen manufacture of Ireland, thought a relaxation of the transit duty advisable. If we refused to admit German linen without the payment of a transit duty, the foreigner would rather go to Germany for the article; he would then either pay the duty which we imposed, or take a less valuable article as a substitute; and as linen might be a necessary article in the assortment of his cargo, this duty would drive him away altogether, even when desirous of obtaining other articles which our soil or industry could supply, He now came to a point which involved important interests he meant the state of the trade with the north of Europe, and the duties imposed on the importation of timber from that quarter. The mea

sure was expressly of a temporary nature, and was necessarily to be brought under review in March next. The interests now vested in the timber-trade to our North-American colonies, grew out of what was considered as a temporary arrangement, and had of course no security against a change which the general interests of the nation might require. The American merchants represent, that, from the length and difficulty of the voyage to North America, the larger part of the value of the timber thence imported consists of freight; and that the mere circumstance of the proximity of the northern ports of Europe, by enabling ships to repeat their voyages frequently in the course of a year, would reduce the number of British vessels employed in the timber-trade to one-third. They therefore said, that whereas it was expedient that they should be employedand whereas they could not be so employed if they procure timber where it is cheapest and best-they therefore should import it of the worst quality, and from the greatest distance. And let their lordships consider what the article was that was thus to be raised in price, while it was deteriorated in quality. It was the raw material of our houses, of our bridges, of our canals, and of our shipping itself; and so inconsistent were the petitioners, that they asked to continue duties which increased the expense of their own trade. Suppose it were proposed, on the same plea, to bring our cotton from the East Indies, instead of importing from America, he did not see on what grounds those could resist such a proposition who argued that we ought to import our timber from Canada rather than from Norway. The committee would consider how much of the duty might be taken off the timber from the north, and what regulations might be adopt