principles, or agreement with the plans, of the petitioners. Extended inquiry was, he thought, desirable, in order to relieve the farmer from that state of feverish anxiety in which he was kept, by a perpetual attention to averages and importing prices. A refusal to inquire was not the best means of tranquillising the public mind. Unquestionably, the same principles of encouragement, which applied to manufactures, did not apply to agriculture, because the former were susceptible of the highest degree of improvement, and the utmost degree of cheapness; but the latter, when extended, must, by being driven to inferior land, have its produce raised in price. Unfortunately, no interests were more at variance, than those of the owner and occupier of land. The landlord had but one object-that of obtaining the highest rent; but the tenant, whatever might be bis interest under an existing lease, could derive no advantage from protecting prices, when that lease expired. As a permanent system, he must lose rather than gain by it; because, whatever tended to raise the price of labour, must diminish the profits of stock. The present system was evidently injurious to him; for, in the event of a more than average crop, he could not export till the price fell below the average, not of this country merely, but of that to which he exported. On the other hand, when a season of scarcity happened, instead of obtaining a proportionally higher price, the farmer was exposed to a competition with every other nation in the world. These two contingencies had the effect of placing kim in a far worse situation, than

that in which he had been accustoned to stand, under ordinary circumstances. The views to which he called the attention of the House were very important, especially to the renters of the land, who, in this case, formed the most numerous class of petitioners; and, therefore, it was extremely desirous that an opportunity should be afforded for going particularly into this branch of the question. There was another reason which ought to induce the House to examine the question-namely, because the mode, in which protection was at present given, was very inconvenient. 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. Every change, to be wise and beneficial, ought to be gradual, and it was peculiarly important that it should be so in this case. Agriculture would be placed under an infinitely safer protection, even with a duty of 20s. the quarter, than it received at present. It was evident, that though this would admit the importation of grain, yet that importation could not, as had been stated, proceed to the extent which many persons supposed. This fact was corroborated by a well-known circumstance. Some time since, orders were sent from France to Dantzig, for the purchase of grain: the consequence was, that the price in the Baltic was immediately raised 25 per cent. This circumstance proved, that the northern market was not in a state to supply very extensive demands. There were other

grounds on which Mr. Lewis contended, that it was necessary to revise the existing law. The cornbill of 1815 was framed avowedly with a reference to the then expenses of cultivation and state of rents. In these respects, the situation of the country was now much altered. The expense of cultivating a farm was diminished nearly one-third. In the manifestoes of the agriculturists themselves, the reduced price of labour was repeatedly stated. The price of horses, too, and of almost every thing necessary for farming, had fallen considerably; and rents had been every where lowered. 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 losers at this time; but that, if any persons now invested fresh capital in agricultural pursuits, they would stand at a charge onethird less than they formerly could do. About one-third was the average declension in the price of corn. There was also a declension in the price of cattle and sheep, but not to so great an extent. The price of corn was not, therefore, so much diminished, when these circumstances were considered, as might be imagined at first sight; and a farmer, who now invested money in agriculture, was likely to reap as great a profit, as he gained prior to the high prices. He could not but persuade himself, that the time was not far distant, when it would be found necessary for us to retread our steps, and to adapt the protection to the altered state of expense. It was an opinion prevalent throughout the country, that excessive taxation

was the great reason of all the distress that was complained of Now this system of protection acted as a tax on consumable commodities. It tended to increase the price to the consumer, to the amount of the difference between the sum for which the article might be bought, and that which was really paid for it; and this increased price did not go to supply any exigency of the state, but went to the landholder. This was the true state of the case; and he looked upon the tax as one of the very worst kind, since it weighed, above all others, on the prime necessaries of life, interfered with that on which all labour depended, and was not levied for the purposes of the state, or for the public protection, but to serve and assist a particular class of persons. He was one of that class, and, if the system were altered, he must of course bear a proportion of the loss; but he would be a gainer ultimately, by the beneficial change that would be operated on all classes of society. The protecting system was carried too far, and it would be found necessary to depart from it by degrees.

Mr. Curwen supported the proposed inquiry, not with any view of raising the present pros tecting price of wheat (for though he could have wished that it had been placed higher originally, he would not now disturb the actual arrangement), but because he hoped that investigation might lead to the removal of the burdens borne peculiarly by the land, and to divide them more equally between the agriculturist and fundholder. The poorrates, and other burdens peculiar to agriculture, constituted thirty

per cent on the value of the produce. It was reasonable, that funded property should bear a part of the burden of the poor rates; and the best mode of accomplishing this, would be by a fair and modified income tax. Seven shillings a quarter would thereby be saved in the growth of corn. The taxes, too, which fell particularly on the common people, such as those on soap and leather, ought, in like manner, to be commuted for an income tax that would fall on all equally.

Mr. Western's views coincided more with those of the mover and seconder of the proposition, though he was disposed to go greater lengths than either of them. He thought, that the petitioners had a right to expect, that some legislative enactment should be passed of a more protective nature than that of 1815. The object of the law of 1815, was not to bolster up the price of grain above its natural level, but to make the country independent of foreign supplies, by encouraging the growth of corn at home. In the accomplishment of this object it had completely failed; and it was therefore necessary to adopt other measures. At present, the produce of the kingdom was gradually diminishing for want of due encouragement, and with it must diminish the wealth and prosperity of the whole empire. 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 658. or 70s., then they began bitterly to complain. In 1817 agriculture began to revive, and with it, of course, the manufacturing districts felt alle viation. The distresses of the labouring classes never arose from the high price of grain; for their sufferings were always most severe, when the produce of the soil was cheap. The price of corn must always be considered with relation to the price of wages: corn might be cheap, yet dear to the labourer, because his wages were low; and, on the other hand, dear corn might be cheap to him, if the sum he obtained by his industry enabled him readily to purchase it. The misery he at present endured originated in not having a market for his labour; and this misery led to degradation and irritation, dangerous to the tranquillity and prosperity of a country. The price of corn could not rise without the price of labour rising also, and the price of labour could not rise unless a better market were obtained for the commodity on which labour was bestowed. It appeared from the population returns, that there were five millions of labourers in the kingdom; and taking the diminution in the value of their services at only 4s. per week, that of itself would amount to no less than 52 millions in the year; and who could venture to state, what effect such a sum withdrawn from the market had upon the manufactures ? The paper currency and the abandonment of it had also their

effect; and, by contracting the amount of the circulating medium, aggravated the inconveniences arising from a decline in the price of grain and labour

Mr. Brougham supported the motion on general principles. Agriculture, he thought, was entitled to special protection, both because many public burdens pressed unequally upon it, and because much poor land had been brought into cultivation, which could not now be thrown back into its former state, without immense misery to individuals, as well as injury to the public. In illustrating these positions, he observed, that nothing was more common than to see a manufac turer erect a fine tall building, a matter of great ornament to the neighbourhood, no doubt, but certainly of great use to him. This building was erected on a comparatively small portion of land; and within its four walls were carried on the manufacture of two very important articles, cotton and paupers! And though this manufactory produced, to its proprietor, an income frequently of not less than 30,000l. a-year, yet he only paid poor-rates as for a property of 5007.; while his poor neighbour, who rented land to that amount, paid the saine proportion, though his income was not the fourth part of his rent. Besides this, there were the bridge-rates, the county-rates, and those other blessings which were heaped on this favoured clase, the agriculturists. They, of course, were not to murmur at all those imposts, nor were they to raise their voices for the same privileges which the other classes enjoyed. It was stated to be an erroneous policy to purchase dear

corn at home, whilst it could be bought at a much cheaper rate abroad; and it was added, that the effect of this would be, to force men to cultivate bad land at a great expense. Though he might agree with this principle in the abstract, yet the question here was not, whether at such an expense you ought to bring poor land into cultivation, but it should be considered, that we had already encouraged the cultivation of such land. The circumstances, in which the country had been 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 depository of a large portion of British capital. It would be idle to say, that this was done in other times, and under other circumstances; for, if we were to go back, we might with as much reason extend our view to the Heptarchy. The fact was, that capital had been so employedthat this land was now under cultivation-that it contained the capital, he might almost say the life, of the cultivators. He would mention one fact, which had fallen within his own knowledge. Some time ago there were two or three cargoes of corn in the port of London, which, but for the cornlaws, could have been purchased ai 37s. per quarter; now, on the principle on which the present motion was opposed, this corn ought to have been purchased, because it was cheaper than any which we could grow; but then, if that principle were extended, what would be the consequence? The inevitable consequence would be, that, in the next season, 7 or 8,000,000 of acres would be

thrown out of cultivation, and those dependant on them out of employment. Was there any man bold enough to look such a difficulty as this in the face? It would be said, "this might be very good logic for the farmer, but it would not be so for the consumer." Let that objection be examined, and, after all, what did it amount to? That we inflicted a certain calamity on the cultivator and landlord, in order that the consumer might eat his quartern loaf a halfpenny cheaper. He would confine himself to that point; and he maintained, that the destruction of one portion of the community could not be considered a benefit, because another portion gained by it. This was a proposition, which no philosopher, or political economist, had ever attempted to deny or to dispute. He would suppose a case of a community, consisting of a thousand individuals; and that he invented a law, by which five hundred of those individuals might be destroyed, which destruction would render the remaining half twice as rich as they were before; would any man attempt to say, that, in such a case, he would confer a benefit on the community? According to the theory of those who opposed this motion, such a law would be most salutary for the five hundred who survived; but he would be acting against every principle of political economy and public justice that he knew of if he did not state, that that law would be most unjust to the individuals destroyed, and most injurious to the remainder as a community.

The motion, on the other hand, was opposed both by ministers,

and by many of the leading mem bers of Opposition. Of the minis ters, Mr. Robinson, president of the board of trade, and Mr. Huskisson, spoke upon it at great length. Mr. Robinson did not deny the existence of agricultural distress, but he doubted its universality; and his doubt was strengthened by the declaration of the noble member for Yorkshire, who had stated, that there was little distress in the district with which he was personally acquainted. He did not see the usual symptoms of general agricultural embarrassment-poorrates increasing-tenants leaving their farms strangers taking them on speculation. But whatever might be the extent of the suffering, it was chiefly important, with a view to the application of a proper remedy, to consider the cause from which it proceeded; not merely its immediate cause, which was clearly a diminution of demand and of price, but the primary cause to which that diminution of price and demand was to be ascribed. It was impossible not to believe, that the reduction of price arose from the immense quantity of land which had been brought into cultivation of late years; and, as the price of corn must be sufficient to pay the expense of growing it on the poorest soils actually cultivated, he conceived it to be impossible, by any legislative contrivance, to retain those lands under the plough, when the cir cumstances, which led at first to their improvement, had ceased to exist. It had been said, that the law of 1815, had been totally ineffectual, because it had not ensnred 80s. per quarter to the farmer. Such was not its intention.