Mr. Westernopposed it, on the ground that the same reasons did not exist now as did when the bill was first brought in. The situation of the West India merchants was much changed; and as the ground was altered, they should shew new reasons for the bill. The average prices of corn, except wheat, were lower now than in 1808.
Mr. Rosesaid, that if the importation of corn had not taken place, the quartern loaf would now have been at 2s.; and that not only bread, but beer would have been raised very considerably.
§ Sir T. Turtonwas for continuing the prohibition, as he considered the average price of all manner of corn, taken together, as greater than what it was in 1808. As his property was entirely in land, it could not be supposed his wish to sacrifice his interest to those of the West India merchants. He thought, however, that the interest of the great mass of labouring peasants and manufacturers should be attended to, and that care should be taken that they should not be affected by a scarcity of corn, he thought also, in justice, that the prohibition should extend to Ireland.
§ Sir James Hallobjected to the prohibition.
§ Mr. Parnelldenied that the average prices were higher now than in 1808, and contended that they were the prices of a falling market. In the London market inferior barley was absolutely unsaleable. He was of opinion that the prohibition should not be continued.
§ Sir John Newportalso stated, that the prices were those of a falling market.
§ The House then divided on the second reading. Ayes 155, Noes 54, Majority 101.