Sitting of 1 March 1827

CORN LAWS.
Mr. Secretary Canningmoved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Acts of 55 Geo. 3, c. 26, and 6 Geo. 4, c. 65, relative to the Trade in Corn.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, he had no objection to the House resolving itself into a committee; but he begged that such assent on his part might not be understood as pledging him, with respect to any ulterior measures which might be proposed for their adoption.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that of course it was impossible that the hon. baronet, by assenting to the motion, could; be so pledged. He was aware, that the more regular course would have been, to have given notice of this motion yesterday; but that had been rendered impossible, in consequence of there being no House.
The House having resolved itself into the said committee,
Mr. Secretary Canningaddressed the Committee to the following effect:—
Before I open the propositions which it is my duty to lay before the Committee, I trust they will permit me to detain them a few minutes, while I express my grateful acknowledgments for the indulgence which they have lately extended to me. I do assure them, that I should neither have called for that indulgence, nor have been disposed to avail myself of it from considerations merely personal to myself; and certain I am, that there are those among the colleagues with whom I have the honour to serve, into whose hands a question of this nature might have been intrusted, with advantage greater than, I fear, it will prove to have been to mine.

759
But, Sir, the reasons which have induced me to take upon myself this task, are simply these. Much as the question upon which I am now to address the House has been agitated, and great as has been the inflammation of men's minds in respect to it, in this House and out of this House, it has been thought desirable that when the propositions of the government on the subject should be brought forward in parliament, they should be brought forward in that manner which should most clearly indicate that they were the propositions of the government at large, and not the emanations of a particular department. In the absence of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade (whom severe indisposition prevents from attending in his place this day), I can the more freely say it, that to his care especially, this business would have been much better confided, if it had not been that the consideration, to which I have just alluded, induced me to allow it to be placed in my hands.
If this consideration was felt strongly in the beginning of the present session of parliament, when the first postponement of the question was proposed and freely acceded to by the House, undoubtedly it has derived additional strength from the late afflicting dispensation of Providence (of which we are still, Sir, watching the issue with trembling anxiety), which deprives my noble friend at the head of us majesty's government, of the opportunity of appearing in his place in the other House of parliament, to submit there, imultaneously, the same propositions which am now about to state to this House to-night; and to vindicate to himself that hare, that paternity, I may rather say, of measure, which I know my noble friend was most anxious so to vindicate to himself; and upon the success of which he was resolved to stake (more than perhaps any minister of this country, within my memory, has ever done upon any measure of such a nature), that eminent reputation, which is naturally most dear, as well as most honourable, to an individual in his exalted station, and if necessary, that nation itself.
It is, therefore, Sir, not less as the representative of my noble friend at the had of his majesty's Treasury, than it is the organ of his majesty's government this House, that I bring forward the resent propositions. I only hope, Sir,
760
that I shall be able so to communicate them to the House as to prove not altogether an unworthy expositor of a measure which I have derived from him, and of which he intrusted to me the charge.
In acknowledging, Sir, the disqualifications which I willingly admit that I labour under in bringing forward this measure, I must also confess that there is, perhaps, one qualification, minor and accidental, for the discharge of such a duty, to which I may, at the same time, lay claim. During the long and repeated discussions upon the Corn-laws, which have at different periods occupied the attention of parliament, it has so happened that I have never taken any part. In the year 1815, when the question was first agitated here, I was absent from this country. In the year 1822, when it was again brought forward, it did happen also, that, from particular circumstances, my lot being then cast for a very distant destination, I was not in the habit of attending very assiduously in this House, and particularly upon the detailed discussions of the Corn-bill. With the single exception of a clause, which my situation, as member for Liverpool, occasioned me to bring in; a clause, which gave to the House, I am afraid, a great deal of trouble, under the name of the "grinding clause;" and which was proposed to be inserted in the bill in its progress through parliament, with various success, at different stages of its discussion, —I took no part whatever in the Corn-bill of 1822.
True it is, also, that in the course of the last session, I submitted to the House a proposition for the temporary opening of the ports, under the pressure of particular circumstances; but on that occasion there was on all parts of the House, by common consent, an entire abstinence from all discussion on the general subject of corn. I trust, therefore, that without any sort of merit of mine, I come to the discussion, uninfluenced by feelings or prejudices, to which, under different circumstances, I might have been liable. I come to this discussion without any prepossessions, without any pledges in favour of plans or proposals formerly suggested: and, at the same time, without any bias, without any predilection, still more without any acrimony, towards any of the parties, or opinions, concerned in those former discussions.
It does, indeed, surprise me, that into

761
these discussions so much of hostile feeling should occasionally have found its way; first, because I feel that, as to the result, the differences are infinitely less between the parties, than they have been stated to be in argument; and, secondly, because, various as the opinions are which have been brought forward on this subject, on different sides, I have never yet seen or heard the extreme opinion, upon either side, unequivocally and unconditionally supported.
The general question is, as to the introduction of foreign corn into this country. It is obvious, that the extreme opinion on one side, would be for perpetual, unmitigated prohibition. It is obvious, that the extreme opinion on the other side, would be for perpetual, unrestricted importation. Now, I have not yet met with any person who, by writing or in speaking, has maintained absolutely, and without qualification, either of these extreme opinions.
All between these extreme opinions, however different or distinct the intermediate stages may be, each from the other, are yet only questions of mode and degree; questions, in discussing which, I think, as in discussing many others, gentlemen are apt to use arguments that rather go beyond their own meaning; but, between which, it can at least be said, that there is no impossibility of effecting an approximation. I have never met with the advocate of a free trade in corn, who, when pressed in argument, has not admitted, that, to the agricultural interest of this country, some protection must be given. I have never met, oil the other hand, with the person who has carried his agricultural doctrines so high, as to say, that he was willing to risk all the consequences of an inflexible and unmitigated exclusion. On the one side, they who contend most loudly for the admission of foreign corn, allow, as I have stated, that a protection is due to our domestic agriculture. As to the mode, as to the amount, as to the degree, of that protection, there are many opinions; but, the principle that some such protection is due, I have never yet heard broadly denied. On the other side, those of the agricultural interest, who press the doctrine of prohibition most strongly, always qualify such doctrine, as to the preference to be given to our own agricultural interest, by the admission, or rather, indeed, by the argument, that, however peremptory the law, in that respect, may be, there will always
762
remain in parliament, or (parliament not sitting), in the executive government, the power of allowing foreign corn to come in to the aid of the country upon any special emergency.
Why, then, Sir, we have the admission on the one side, that our own agriculture is necessarily to be protected—we have the admission on the other side, that an unremitting exclusion of foreign corn is not the mode to be pursued with a view to that protection. Having these admissions upon the general principle, all the rest is, as I have said, a question of mode and of degree—a question that is, in what mode, and to what degree, shall that protection, to which the agricultural interest of this country is so admitted to be entitled, be extended?
The last few years have produced two or three distinct plans, in reference to the protection, which it is thus conceded on all hands it is necessary to afford to the agricultural interest. I may mention, in the first place, the one to which the authority of the late Mr. Ricardo's name is attached; another, which I believe originated with a noble lord, in the other House of parliament; and a third, which I shall merely designate as that which comprises the doctrines of the more severe and theoretical of the political economists; and with which every body who is at all acquainted with the periodical literature of the age, may be supposed to be conversant.
These three plans, the committee will observe, have been devised by persons the most generally favourable to a free trade in corn; which plans, nevertheless, not only admit the necessity of protection to the landed interest, but specify the mode and degree in which, according to the notions of those persons, that protection should be administered. One of these plans is to impose a duty of 20 s. per quarter on corn. (When, in the course of this argument, I say corn, I speak of wheat. The duties on the other species of grain follow, of course, in due proportion). I say, by one of these plans a duty of 20 s. per quarter on wheat imported, was to be imposed, without reference to price; such duty to be diminished yearly, until it was reduced to 5s. or 10 s. the quarter, at one of which mitigated rates that duty was to be permanent.—The second plan, which was devised by a noble lord, as I have said, in the other House, differed from that of Mr. Ricardo in this respect,

763
that it proposed to begin the scale of pro-lection at a duty of 16 s., to be diminished gradually to 10 s., and at that rate to be rendered permanent. The last plan to which I have referred, and that which is the most recent, is, to lay a duty, once for all of 5 or 6s. per quarter, without reference to price, which duty is to be of permanent duration; but with this provision, that, in case of a great extremity of pressure from a defective supply of our markets, it might be doubtful whether such permanent duty should not be relaxed.
Now, Sir, my objection to each of these three plans, is comprised in the very case supposed of the possible occurrence of such a pressure; viz. that when that pressure comes, each or any of these plans, if adopted, would prove delusive to the agricultural interest. Sir, it is quite impossible to suppose, that, in a state of extreme pressure, with famine in your streets, in your workshops, and your cottages, the government could continue to levy any such duty, whether of 5s. or of 10 s., at the out-ports, on the importation of foreign corn. Either the parliament, if sitting, would feel itself bound to interfere, under the pressure of such an emergency, and would suspend such duty; or, if parliament were not sitting, the executive government would assume the discretion to suspend it. The objection, therefore, to this mode of protection seems to be, that it does not answer its purpose; that it admits, indeed, the principle of protection, but does not carry it, in all cases, into effect.
On the other hand, Sir, what is the qualification which they, who contend, in supporting their side of the question, for perpetual prohibition, proposed? They are for perpetual prohibition, mitigated only by the occasional interference of parliament, or the executive government. They appeal from legislation to discretion— they are unwilling to take that step now, which their own admission, that it may be to be taken hereafter under the pressure of necessity, clearly shows that they contemplate, as probable; and they either impose upon parliament the duty of legislating under a dire emergency, or upon the executive to exercise a discretionary power of suspending that prohibition, which prohibition they contend parliament ought, in the first instance, to enact.
From these extremes, I turn, therefore, to more practical questions. What is the degree of protection that ought to be given
764
to our domestic agriculture? Do the laws, as they are now expressed, afford the precise degree of protection which is desirable? Do they afford it in the best mode? Do they afford it to a proper or to an unnecessary extent?
The law of the year 1815, introduced for the first time, into the legislation of this country, upon the subject of corn, and its importation from foreign countries, the principle of absolute prohibition—I say, Sir, for the first time; and, so far as I know, it was the first time, with only one exception. It does appear, indeed, upon some researches which have been prosecuted into this subject, that (long anterior to the act of 1815—in the time, indeed, of Edward 4th, some three centuries and a half ago) a law was passed; the substance of that law, I collect to have been as follows:—That, whenever wheat should be at a certain price in this country, not only should foreign wheat be excluded from coming into the kingdom at all, but that the wheat grown in the neighbourhood of one town in England, should not be transmissible to another town, where a difference in the price of that commodity prevailed. I need hardly observe, Sir, that I mention this law only because, if I were to say, without qualification, that in 1815, the legislature for the first time introduced this principle of prohibition with respect to the corn trade, I should be liable to be contradicted upon the fact. But, while I am thus citing that ancient law to the House, and very shortly slating its contents, I apprehend that it cannot be very necessary for me to enter into any arguments upon them—such a precedent is not calculated, at this time of day, to weigh much with the House or with the country.
In the year 1815, then, the principle of absolute prohibition, up to a certain point, was adopted by the legislature, and this principle, Sir, was qualified by the opposite principle of unrestricted importation. It does appear to me, on a calm review of the character of that act of parliament —(not at all pretending, that if I had happened to be among those, from whose deliberations that measure proceeded, I should have been at all wiser than my neighbours) —it does appear to me, Sir, as if this was an experiment to combine the most opposite principles in one and the same act of legislation. In the act of 1815, Sir, here is absolute prohibition, up to 80 s.;

765
but the moment you turn the point of 80 s., you arrive at unlimited importation.
Now, what was the consequence of this measure? Not that the extreme forces produced, by their operation, a mean power, and went on amicably together; but that, each in its turn prevailed with its own peculiar mischief—and that you had, within the extent of seven years, from 1815 downwards, every result that could deter men of observation and experience, from ever resorting again to the principle either of absolute prohibition, or of unlimited importation; and, most undoubtedly, from any attempt to unite again the two together.
Let us now inquire what was the operation of this law? It passed, as I have said, in 1815. I say nothing at present of price; I shall come to the consideration of that point presently. The law of 1815 imposed absolute prohibition up to the price of 80 s. The harvest of 1816, it is well known, was one of the most unfavourable that this country ever experienced. It was known to be so, as early as the beginning of August in that year. It was on the 15th of August, 1816, that that average of prices was to be prepared, which was to govern the question of exclusion on the one side, or importation on the other, for the next three months. On the 15th of August, the price of wheat was above the importing price of the law of 1815; but it had not been so for a sufficiently long period, to give an average price above the importing price. The result was, therefore, that the ports remained closed during three starving months from August to November, 1816; and did not open until the 15th November of that year, after the price had been for about fifteen weeks, above the importing- price, and when all the northern ports of Europe were shut against supply. The ports opened in November, 1816, and remained open till the November of the following year; when they closed, the average price being less than 80 s. by the fraction of 5d. The harvest of the year 1817 having been nearly or quite as bad as that of 1816, we had again a scarcity of supply, but the ports thus closed in November, 1817, of course did not open until February, 1818.
Although the harvest of that year (1818) was most abundant, not only in this country, but in all the corn-growing countries of Europe; yet, by some accident, or by
766
some contrivance, the ports were continued open on the 15th of November, 1818, by a fraction of 2d.: and, by consequence, for the next three months, from November, 1818, to the quarterly average of February, 1819, an extraordinary influx of foreign corn continued to inundate the country, already inundated by a plenty of its own growth; prices were, in consequence, depressed to an extraordinary degree. Indeed, the effect of these three months' importations, produced, as I have said, by a fractional difference of 2d., was felt in the depreciation of the market for the three succeeding years.
Thus, by the system of 1815, the ports were shut when the supply at home was deficient, and when the introduction of foreign grain was loudly called for—and opened when the home market was glutted, and when it was most expedient to shut out foreign supply: and the one operation and the other were produced by fractions of 5d. and of 2d. respectively.
The consequence, then, Sir, of setting these two extreme principles in action, of setting them in conflict with each other, was this—that each class of the community in its turn became a sufferer; and that each class applied to this House for relief. We all remember what the summer of 1817 was. And any hon. gentleman who will take the trouble of turning back to the Journals of this House, will see with what hundreds of petitions our table was loaded, in the years 1819, 1820, and 1821, when the agricultural interest was suffering from the extraordinary fluctuation of prices. The extreme difference of prices during the period for which this system was in operation, that is, from 1815 to 1822, was no less than this—on the one hand, 112 s. per quarter (this was in the year 1817)—on the other hand, 38 s. (this was in 1822), being a fluctuation of no less than 74 s. per quarter!
In 1822, the House listened to the prayer of the agricultural interest, and the law of 1815 was revised. Of that revised law, it may be sufficient to say, that it has never come into operation. It was, nevertheless, in one respect, materially different from the law of 1815. It called duty to its aid; it gave up as a principle, unlimited prohibition, and contemplated a price at which foreign corn might be admitted, under a protecting duty. It admitted importation at 80 s. first, and afterwards at 70 s., at a duty first of 17 s.,

767
and afterwards of 12 s. But to that revised law was annexed or prefixed a clause, which stood as an outwork, as it were, to prevent the body of the law from being ever approached. This clause retained the provision of the law of 1815, that importation should be prohibited up to the price of 80 s.; the consequence of which was, and still is, that we live now as much under the operation of the original provision of exclusion up to 80 s., as if the law of 1815 still continued unaltered. The result, then, of the alteration of 1822, has been perfectly null, for the revised law has never come into operation at all.
If, then, unlimited prohibition, or if unrestricted importation, whether singly or jointly, do not afford the proposed protection to agriculture in an unexceptionable manner, and if it be admitted that duty is the better mode of protection, let us now consider the question of duty. Can any fixed duty ever be effectual to answer its own purpose? Take, if you will, Mr. Ricardo's plan; or either of the two other plans to which I have called the attention of the committee, or take either of the duties proposed by the act of 1822, that of 17 s., or that of 12 s.; and let it be fixed and invariable,—and then sec how it will operate. Let us suppose the duty of 12 s. to be in question. We find wheat to have been in one year, 112 s. per quarter: consider what an aggravation an addition of a duty of 12 s. would be of the sufferings of the community, from the high price of corn. In another year, we find the price of the quarter to be 74 s. less: consider how small would be the protection to the agriculturist from a duty of 12 s. added to 38 s.
It seems perfectly clear, therefore, that a duty, to be effectually a protection on the one hand, and not an undue burthen on the other, must vary with the price of corn. The average of prices, for twelve years immediately preceding 1815, was 84 s. 5d. The average of the first six years of this period of twelve years, was 72 s. 2d. The average of the six years immediately preceding 1815, was 98 s. 6d. Now, the price assumed by the law of 1815 was 80 s.—This price was taken upon the consideration, no doubt, that as the war was then at an end, much was to be deducted from the price, on account of the cessation of the war expenditure. I think, upon the whole, that that price was fairly chosen: and I mean to affix no blame upon the law of 1815, in this respect.
768
The average price of corn for the twelve years, from 1815 to the last year, was 64 s. 11 d.
The average price, for the six years following 1815, was 74 s. 2d.
And the average of the last six years of this period, from 1820, was 55 s. 9d.
In the year 1822, the permanent price assumed was 70 s. I am not disposed to quarrel with it, although it is to be observed, that it goes upon a very different state of things from that which had governed the law of 1815; for it is to-be remembered, that the reduction of taxation and of the public expenditure had produced, in 1822, a considerable difference in the condition of the country.
If it be considered, that in addition to the diminution of expenditure and reduction of taxation which I have just noticed, there was, in the year 1819, another material change effected in the state of the country by the act which restored the value of the currency, I think it will be allowed that on the very same principles on which, in the year 1822, the price of 70 s. may have been a proper one, 60 s. would, for all purposes of justice and equity, to all parties, be sufficient at this moment. 60 s. is the medium between the average of the last twelve years, and the average of the last six years of that period; it is the exact average of the last four years. Is it not fair, therefore, to consider this as the price, to which the protection of the agricultural interest should be limited, and which parliament, looking to the principle of its former legislation on the subject, would be justified in fixing? My noble friend, whose researches, and opportunities of inquiring into this subject, have been much more laborious and ample than my own, was of opinion, that 60 s. was the price, up to which the landed interest are entitled to protection.
So much, Sir, for the amount; next, as to the mode in which this protection ought to be given. I have mentioned to the committee the reasons which induce me to think that a fixed duty is not the duty to be adopted; that a fixed duty, without reference to variation of price, must at one time be too high, at another too low; and, by the very circumstance that it does not itself vary whle the other quantity is perpetually varying, it would be introducing perpetual inequalities. I conceive, that a scale of duties, which

769
should vary inversely as the prices of corn, correcting the excess, and making up the deficiency, and tending by this alternate aid to their general equalization, would be that which would carry in itself the best chance of general steadiness; a property, which is perhaps the first thing, perhaps even before occasional cheapness, to be considered in legislation on the subsistence of the people.
As to the amount of such duty, the grounds on which any particular amount should be assumed is matter of more detail than I think it expedient at present to enter into; for I am aware, that prices in foreign markets, and many other matters of that nature, should properly enter into such a discussion. Upon the best consideration which my noble friend at the head of his majesty's government was able to give to this subject, he satisfied himself that a protecting duty of 20 s., where the price of the quarter of wheat is 60 s., would be as much as it would be reasonable and fair to impose, and not more.
Taking as the mean term of our plan the average price of wheat at 60 s., and the duty at 20 s., it is proposed to diminish that duty by 2s. for every 1s. of increase of the average price above 60 s.; and, on the contrary, to increase that duty by 2s. for every 1s. which the average price shall fall below 60 s. The effect of this scale then will be, that, from the assumed price of 60 s. up to 61 s., there will be a duty of 20 s.; from 61 s. to 62 s., the duty will be 18 s.; from 62 s. to 63 s., the duty will be 16 s.; from 63 s. to 64 s, 14 s.; from 64 s. to 65 s., 12 s.; from 65 s. to 66 s., 10 s.; and so on, until the price having arrived at 70 s., all duty will cease, and importation be perfectly free, with the exception merely of the nominal duty of registration at the Custom-house. Thus at 65 s., the duty will be 10 s.; and at 70 s., it will cease altogether, and importation be perfectly free. This, Sir, is the ascending scale of price. On the other hand, as to the descending scale, from 60 s. to 59 s., there will be an addition of 2s. So that, at 55 s., the duty will amount to 30 s., in other words, to a prohibitory duty, as it is intended that at that price it should be.
I trust, Sir, that it will be felt that this project has been impartially conceived; and I confess that I can anticipate from those who insist upon a law of prohibition,
770
on the one hand, or from those who insist upon unlimited importation, on the other hand, no objection, but such as must inevitably belong, in their eyes, to every plan of compromise or settlement.
I am aware, indeed, that there is one question which may arise from the statement that I have made; I am aware that I may be asked, by the agricultural body, "If there be any point on which you are prepared to grant us a prohibitory duty, why not, at that point, establish an absolute prohibition?" I will tell you, Sir. In the first place, I think it no light matter, with respect to a subject which has been, not for years only, but for ages, under the consideration of parliament, that there has been no instance, excepting that of 1815, wherein prohibition has been an admitted principle of legislation. Even during a series of years, particularly from 1670 to 1774, when it was the object of parliament, not only to discourage importation, but to encourage the exportation of British corn, that discouragement of importation was carried into effect, not by prohibition, but by duty. In the second place, I must say, that after the experience we have had, under the law of 1815, there is no great inducement to our continuing this innovation (for so I must call it). Thirdly, Sir, it seems to me desirable, that if there is to be a trade in corn at all, it should be conducted, as far as possible, on the principles of other trades, in a sober, regular course, and not by perpetual jirks and impulses arising out of extraordinary emergencies. I am persuaded, that if importation be always free, taking sufficient security against an inundation of the home market, it will flow in a regular, equable current, supplying the real wants of the country, without overwhelming it; instead of rendering the trade, as now, under the principle of prohibition, a perpetual series of alternations between a drought and a deluge.
I think this project will tend to equalize the prices, and keep that equalization of prices steady. The market will indeed assume such a steadiness, that, instead of a fluctuation between one hundred and twelve shillings at one time, and thirty-eight shillings at another, the vibrations will probably be found to be limited within the small circle of from about fifty-five shillings to about sixty-five shillings. The plan will provide against the mischief arising from sudden gluts in the market at

771
one time, and sudden dearths compelling, us to legislate occasionally, in contradiction to our general system of legislation, at another. It will get rid of another evil of very great magnitude—the abuses of the system of averages. If, as I have already stated, we see that a fraction of five-pence one way, and of two-pence the other, shut the ports when they ought to have been open, and opened them when they ought to have been shut, it is impossible not to entertain some suspicion of the soundness of the system by which such inconvenient effects were produced. By this plan, the averages will be declared weekly, and each week's average will govern the duty of the ensuing week; what room can there be, in the course of a week, for deep speculation? In an interval of three months, it is possible for great capitalists to produce an effect upon prices by unfair means. But, under the hew arrangement, when the average of one Saturday will be overturned by the average of the next Saturday, what temptation— what opportunity—can there be for the commission of fraud?
This plan will therefore tend to vindicate the respectability of the corn trade, which will assume, even in the eyes of those by whom it has been most suspected, a character more analogous to the regular trade of British merchants in other brandies of commerce. The plan will also get rid entirely of the possibility of such an interference on the part of the executive government, which some gentlemen refer to with great complacency as a cure, but which I confess I consider an aggravation of the present system. I am perfectly confident, and so are my colleagues, that we did right some months ago in taking upon ourselves the responsibility of admitting corn not admissible by law. But though we were right in taking care of the public good, we were not unconscious at the time, and we have since received painful information, that while we did a great public good, we did much private mischief. The measure which was adopted to save the country from the suffering which would have followed a scarcity—may have had the effect of injuring more than one private fortune. Honourable gentlemen talk glibly of responsibility, and taunt ministers, as if they would have been incapable of filling their situations, if they had hesitated to exercise an extraordinary discretion in such an emergency. I do
772
not say that, under a similar emergency, we should not be ready to act with similar, decision again; but though such an emergency may have justified the exercise of an extraordinary discretion, it is surely incumbent upon ministers to endeavour to prevent a recurrence of it.
These are some of the benefits which this plan presents to the House; and if it should appear upon trial, that interests which are now supposed to be wide as the poles asunder, may thus be approximated more nearly than is now believed to be possible—such a result would be worth all the rest. It will tend to sweeten the ill blood which has too long subsisted between two classes of the community, looking with jealousy at each other, and to unite conflicting opinions as well as interests, which have appeared to be altogether irreconcileable.
These are the principles on which the plan of his majesty's ministers is founded: these are the objects which they propose to carry into effect. I have now only to commit the resolutions which I have to propose, to the judgment of the committee, whom I entreat, to whatever objections they may deem the plan to be liable in detail, to receive it, as it is intended to be, in the light of a peace-offering from my noble friend at the head of the government.
The resolutions are calculated, as I verily believe, to allay jealousies, to terminate disputes, and to convince those who have been long causelessly arrayed against each other, under a notion that their respective prosperities were incompatible, that there is room enough in the world for both, and that their advantages may be doubled by union. In this spirit the resolutions have been conceived, and in this spirit I trust they will be accepted.
The following Resolutions were then put:—
"That it is the opinion of this committee, that any sort of corn, grain, meal, and flour, which may now, by law, be imported into the United Kingdom, should at all times be admissible for home use, upon payment of the duties following, viz.— If imported from any foreign country:—
WHEAT, VIZ.—"Whenever the average, price of wheat made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 60 s. and under 61 s. the quarter, the duty shall be for every quarter, 1l. And in respect of every integral shilling by which such price

773
shall be above 60 s., such duty shall be decreased by 2s., until such price shall be 70 s.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 70 s., the duty shall be for every quarter, 1s.
"Whenever such price shall be under 60 s. and not under 59 s., the duty shall be for every quarter, 1l. 2s. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under 59 s., such duty shall be increased by 2s.
BARLEY.—"Whenever the average price of bailey made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 30 s., and under 31 s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 10 s. And in respect of every integral shilling by which such price shall be above 30 s., such duty shall be decreased by 1s. 6d. until such price shall be 37 s.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 37 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 1s.
"Whenever such price shall be under 30 s., and not under 29 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 11 s. 6d. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under 29 s., such duty shall be increased 1s. 6d.
OATS.—"Whenever the average price of oats made up and published in manner required by law shall be 21 s., and under 22 s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 7s. And in respect of every integral shilling by which such price shall be above 21 s., such duty shall be decreased by 1s., until such price shall be 28 s.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 28 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 1s.
"Whenever such price shall be under 21 s., and not under 20 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 8s. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under 20 s., such duty shall be increased by 1s.
RYE, PEAS, AND BEANS.—"Whenever the average price of rye, or of peas, or of beans, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 35 s., and under 36 s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 15 s. And in respect of every integral shilling by which such price shall be above 35 s., such duty shall be
774
decreased by 1s. 6d. until such price shall be 45 s.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 45 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 1s.
"Whenever such price shall be under 35 s., and not under 34 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 16 s. 6d. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under 34 s., such duty shall be increased by 1s. 6d.
WHEAT, MEAL AND FLOUR.—"For every barrel, being 1961b., a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on five bushels of wheat.
OATMEAL.—"For every quantity of 2521b. a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of oats.
MAIZE OR INDIAN CORN, BUCKWHEAT, BEER OR BIGG.—"For every quarter, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of barley.
"If the produce of, and imported from any British possession in North America or elsewhere, out of Europe:—
WHEAT.—"For every quarter, 5s.; until the price of British wheat, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 65 s. per quarter.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 65 s. the duty shall be, for every quarter, 6d.
BARLEY.—"For every quarter, 2s. 6d.; until the price of British barley, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 33 s. per quarter.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 33 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 6d.
OATS.—"For every quarter, 2s.; until the price of British oats, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 24 s. per quarter.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 24 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 6d.
RYE, BEANS, AND PEAS.—"For every quarter, 3s.; until the price of British rye, or of beans, or of peas, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 40 s.
"Whenever such price shall be at or above 40 s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 6d.
WHEAT, MEAL AND FLOUR.—"For every barrel, being 1961b., a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on five bushels of wheat.
OATMEAL.—"For every quantity of 2521b. a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of oats.
MAIZE OR INDIAN CORN, BUCKWHEAT, BEER OR BIGG.—"For every quarter, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of barley.
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that all the said duties shall be regulated and determined, from week to week, by the average prices of corn, made up in manner required by law; which prices shall, at the several ports of the United Kingdom, determine the several rates of the said duties, for and during the week next after the receipt of the proper certificates of such average prices at such ports respectively."
Mr. Westernsaid, he could not help giving the right hon. Secretary credit for the mode in which he had opened these resolutions, as it was well calculated to afford the House the means of exercising upon them a fair consideration. For his own part, he hoped to be able to lay aside, to a certain extent, his preconceived opinions and established notions upon this subject, and to come to the propositions which had been laid upon the table in the fairest and most deliberate manner. He hoped that time would be afforded the House and the country to consider the novel system which was now proposed. He trusted that the House would well consider the probable danger of interfering with a system which had worked so well for so many years. This measure was in direct violation of the act of 1814, which was founded upon the act of Charles 2nd; the principle of which act had been the admiration of ages. He wished to God that the House had never abandoned the principles on which it had acted with so much success up to the year 1773. Even in 1815, when, owing to the hostility with America, there was no importation of corn, the country was in a better state than when we were at peace with all the world. In 1812, one hundred thousand quarters of corn had been imported; in 1813 we quarrelled with America; and, in 1814, an embargo was laid upon their ports; and, although there was a large proportion of foreign wheat and flour, not one grain entered the British ports. He could not help thinking that the new scale of duties proposed by the right hon. gentleman would, in the end, be more injurious to the landed interest, and more
776
obnoxious to the country at large, than the system which was formerly pursued. Even prohibition would, he conceived, be better for the country than the adoption of the right hon. gentleman's resolutions. He called the recollection of the House to the relative prices of corn and the relative circumstances of the country in the year 1825, and the present. In the former year, every class of the community was in the most flourishing condition. What was their condition at present? In that year of general prosperity, 1825, the price of wheat was 68 s. per quarter. But now, when the circumstances of all classes were the reverse of prosperous, the price of grain was only 53 s. per quarter; so that the House was called upon, when the average price was from 10 s. to 12 s. a quarter less than it was in 1825, and when the manufacturing classes were suffering the deepest distress, to accede to a proposition, the effect of which would be to add to the evils that already existed. Yet the right hon. gentleman had declared, that the effect of his measure would be to reconcile all parties. But merchants and manufacturers would not be so easily reconciled; and no instance could be adduced to show, that the welfare of those two great bodies were not intimately connected. When one prospered, so did the other; and when one decayed, the other decayed also. Having made these few observations, he would not proceed further at that time, but would conclude as he began, with an assurance that he would give to the propositions of the right hon. gentleman the best considerations that he was able. He was afraid that the consequence of these alterations would be bankruptcy to the farmers. The effect of this experiment would, he feared, be to render the farmers as well as other classes, worse off than they were now. If it failed, he was sure it would effect the ruin of the farmers; if they were ruined, distress would press on the labouring classes; and the injury would not stop with them, but extend itself to trade and manufactures. With these opinions he would apply himself earnestly to the consideration of the propositions submitted to the Committee. He hoped that they would be productive of other results than those which he apprehended from them.
Mr. Fergusonsaid, that as the law of 1815 had been tried and had failed, his majesty's ministers should be careful how

777
they introduced new measures with respect to the importation of corn, and the regulation of its duties. Agreeing, therefore, in the principle of the right hon. gentleman's proposition, as a Scotch representative, he was bound to declare his conviction, that the agricultural interest of Scotland would be ruined if the proposed measure should be sanctioned by the House. He hoped that time would be allowed, in order to collect the sentiments of the country on this momentous question, before any definitive measure should be adopted. Scotland, he hoped, would be heard, for he was perfectly sure that that country would feel the greatest depression and ruin—he repeated the word, ruin—if the proposed suggestions were acted upon.
Sir John Newportentirely agreed in the observations of the hon. member who spoke last. On the part of Ireland, he objected to the proposed regulation with respect to flour. It seemed to him to be conferring a premium on the poorer classes abroad, at the expense of our poor at home. This was an erroneous principle, and, on the part of Ireland, he protested against it. He hoped, however, that in the further discussion of these resolutions this point would be seen in its true light.
Mr. Bankessaid, he rose to ask a question of the right hon. gentleman. What effect did the right hon. gentleman suppose his resolutions would have on the price of grain? Did he think 53 s., the present price, too high, or too low? What was that price which, in the right hon. gentleman's opinion, would be a fair balance between the producer and the consumer?
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he had already stated, that his majesty's ministers were of opinion, that 60 s. a quarter would be a fair medium price.
Sir J, Wrottesleyconcurred in the general view of the subject which the right hon. gentleman had taken; but he was obliged to differ with him as far as regarded part of its details. He deprecated the scale of duties proposed for barley and oats, and said that, in this respect, the suggestions of the right hon. gentleman were highly questionable.
Mr. C. Grantwished to correct a mistake into which the hon. member for Essex had fallen. It was stated, that his right hon. friend had said, that corn at
778
one period had risen to 113 s. a quarter. His right hon. friend had stated, that since 1815 corn had been at 112 s. a quarter. In 1817, on the 28th of June, wheat was 112 s. and on the 22nd of October in the same year it was 38 s. 1d. With reference to the observations of the right hon. baronet, he begged to say that, although the introduction of flour into Ireland had been heretofore prohibited, the proposition which was made that night would not have the effect of throwing open the ports in Ireland to that article to any injurious extent.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, he approved to a certain extent of the measures proposed by the right hon. gentleman, yet he denied that they were of that important nature which the country had a right to expect. He was far from thinking that they would give that satisfaction which the right hon. gentleman anticipated, or that the agricultural and manufacturing interests would flourish under their operation. He thought the duty of 20 s. when wheat was at 60 s. the quarter, too high. If the duty were only 10 s., and that to commence when the price of the quarter was—The hon. member was proceeding to state his objections in detail to the scale of duties proposed by the right hon. Secretary, when he was interrupted by loud and general coughing. Having waited until the noise had subsided, he observed, that if he had come down to the House for the purpose of proposing counter resolutions, he should not have been so much surprised at the interruption he experienced; but, as that was not the case, and as he merely expressed, or was about to express, a very limited opinion, he felt at a loss to account for the interruption. He conceived that the evils of the present system would not be alleviated by the new measure [renewed coughing]. Considerable fluctuations in agricultural produce would be one of its results, and he was convinced that in the end it would prove extremely detrimental to the country. He would not at present, however, go into any details respecting the propositions of the right hon. gentleman; but he hoped that, when those propositions came to be considered, the House would not attempt to stifle the opinions of those members who might conceive it their duty to give a free opinion on the subject, however that opinion might be opposed to the sentiments of those who thought proper to interrupt.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, he entertained a very different opinion from that of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. This was a most important question. It was whether the House should legislate on the principle of prohibition, or admit corn on paying a certain duty; and he thought himself bound to state (for he had given the subject the most mature consideration) that he was in favour of prohibition in preference to duty. That was his deliberate and confirmed opinion; and he took the opportunity of stating it distinctly to the House. There was one observation made by the right hon. gentleman, which, he confessed, had filled his mind with the greatest surprise and distrust. He had stated, that in bringing forward these propositions he had endeavoured to cast the balance in favour of free trade— ["No, no," from Mr. Canning.] He "was certain the right hon. gentleman said, that the balance of principle, would be in favour of free trade, and the balance in price in favour of agriculture. If the principle of the proposed bill tended to abrogate the Corn-laws—and he was well assured that it would be the first step to the attainment of that object—he cautioned the House how it proceeded to legislate on such a dangerous measure.
Mr. Canningwished to say a few words in explanation. The hon. baronet had misapprehended his meaning to a certain extent. He was partly right, and partly wrong. He had not said that he wished to cast the balance in favour of free trade, but merely in favour of trade. The meaning which he attached to that expression might have been ascertained from what he had said on the first topic. It was clear that he, and those with whom he acted, could not entertain the intentions attributed to them by the hon. baronet; because, according to the very principle of those propositions, they had abandoned that measure, by admitting the necessity of a protecting duty.
Lord Althorpwas of opinion, that the propositions of the right hon. Secretary, so far from being likely to produce mischievous results, would be the means of causing a great improvement in the country, both with respect to its trade and agriculture. He spoke as the representative of an agricultural county, and he felt that it was his duty to protect the interests of his constituents; but he could not perceive that, by supporting the reso
780
lutions which had been proposed, he in any way compromised their interests. He repeated his belief that the measure proposed by the right hon. Secretary would be a very great improvement; and he was convinced that the farmers would be eventually benefitted by it. The plan, he conceived, also, would have the effect of putting an end to those rash speculations which were so often ruinous to many. The noble lord concluded by observing that, perceiving the unwillingness of the House to go more fully into the subject at present, he would not enter into any calculations; but he thought that any man who would refer to the returns of the prices of corn which were now on the table, would at once perceive the necessity of adopting some measure to place the Corn-laws on a more just and liberal footing.
Alderman Thompsonapproved of the proposed resolutions, although he thought that the price fixed for wheat was too high.
Sir T. Lethbridgewished to say three or four words on the question before the committee. Now that he had heard the: proposition of the right hon. gentleman, he was free to say, that, though it did not come, with the disadvantages, and in the questionable shape which he had expected, was not quite to his mind; yet, after the dire anticipations and gloomy reports which had reached his ears, there was something of consolation in it for the agricultural interest. He declared himself opposed to the views which had just been disclosed to the committee by the hon. alderman who represented the city of London. The hon. alderman thought that the sum in the scale of prices for the importation of wheat was too high. Now, he, on the contrary, thought that it was too low; and for this reason—that the present measure was an experiment made upon the whole corn trade of the country, and it was impossible to foresee what would be the result of it. As he was one who had always stood up in parliament, not only for the protection, but also for the encouragement of agriculture, he should have liked to have seen the prices fixed at a lower rate whilst the experiment was making. As the committee was not called upon to discuss the proposition at present, he would give his best attention to it, in order that he might fully understand it in all its various bearings and ramifications. At the same time he should consider him-

781
self as a deserter from the agricultural cause, if he were to say, that he was prepared to agree with the proposition of the right hon. Secretary. He believed that he should be obliged to vote against it; but he would not then say that he would. He wished, before he sat down, to put a question to the right hon. gentleman. Did he understand the right hon. gentleman correctly, when he understood him to say that the averages in future should be made up weekly? If they were to be so made up, he, for one, should be inclined to hail the change as a very beneficial one.
Mr. Canningreplied, that the averages at present were taken weekly. Instead, however, of taking an average from the average prices of several weeks, he intended that each week's average should regulate the duties for the week ensuing.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, he had devoted much of his time to the consideration of the Corn-laws, and he now gave it as his opinion, that the present proposition was better calculated than any which had preceded it for the purposes it was intended to accomplish. He would not discuss at present the details of this measure, but would content himself with giving his hearty concurrence to the principle on which it was founded.
Mr. Curwenasked, whether the improvement in taking the averages was to be extended to Ireland?
Mr. Canningsaid, that there was no intention to alter the existing mode of taking the averages: but there was an intention of so regulating the striking of them, as to prevent the frauds which were at present practised under them. He had no intention of getting rid of the system entirely, as it answered the purpose of obtaining an approximation to the real price of corn throughout the country. He thought that the evils of the present system would be diminished by shortening the period in which the averages were struck.
Mr. Alderman Woodobserved, that, as the hon. member for Somersetshire expressed himself almost satisfied with the proposition then before the committee, it behoved the members for populous cities I to view it with something like a feeling of alarm.
Mr. Portmanimplored the House not to come to a hasty conclusion upon this most important of all important subjects, His object in rising at present was to im
782
plore the members of the committee to make up their minds to one point—that protection to agriculture was absolutely necessary to the well-being of the country. He would not then pretend to decide, whether protection to that interest could be best obtained by the existing system, or by that which it was proposed to substitute in lieu of it. He would confess, that he was one of those who preferred protection to prohibition. But there might be peculiarities connected with the trade in corn, which rendered it impossible to concede to the country, that which he would not be unwilling, individually, to concede to it. He was convinced, that unless the committee granted a protection to agriculture up to 60 s. a quarter, no wheat could be grown, so as to remunerate the grower in the county which he had the honour to represent. He was afraid that a duty of 20 s. would hardly be found sufficient for the protection of the agriculturists. If it were not, the importation of foreign corn would tend to throw the poor lands of the country out of cultivation and if they were thrown out of cultivation, the labourers must be thrown upon the poor-rates; and such an occurrence could not fail to lead to a very lamentable catastrophe. He would beg leave to ask a question which he considered to be very material; and that was, whether the quarter of wheat was to be reckoned by the Winchester or the imperial measure?
Mr. Canningreplied, that the quarter was now reckoned by the Winchester measure, and no alteration was intended in that respect.
Colonel Woodsaid, that as some gentlemen had stated the scale of duties to be too high, whilst others contended that it was too low, it might, perchance, turn out, that ministers had acted very wisely in fixing on a medium between the two parties. At the same time, he must say, it appeared to him, that if agriculture was to be supported by protection, and not by prohibition, the scale of prices was too low. He implored the committee to recollect, that the farmers were at present in a very critical situation; and that if it now took a wrong step, it might create such a depression in every species of agricultural produce, as would produce the greatest distress. He believed that the safest mode of proceeding was by prohibition, and not by protection.
Lord Miltonrose to express his appro

783
bation of the measure then under the consideration of the committee. Without saying whether the proposition was perfect in its present shape, or whether it could not be made more perfect by future modifications, it did appear to him to be a great improvement on the present state of the law; and that if there was one class more than another to whom it was likely to be advantageous, it was that class which was engaged in agriculture. The present system of alternation between high and low prices, injurious as it was to the other classes of his majesty's subjects, was absolutely destructive to agricultural interest. He could not sit down without expressing a hope that, whatever threats might be thrown out by those who were dissatisfied with the proposition, the right hon. mover of it would persist fearlessly in support of it, and would not allow himself to be diverted from a line of conduct, which, whether it was the wisest or not that could be adopted, was still such as to entitle him to the approbation and gratitude of his country.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that in rising to address the committee on the present occasion, he had no intention to anticipate the full debate, which he allowed would come on more appropriately at another season. He trusted, however, that the debate would come on at such a period as would enable those who were obliged to leave town for the assizes to take a part in it. He did not speak of those members whoso professional avocations called them out of town, but he alluded to those gentlemen connected with the landed interest, who must be withdrawn on the same occasion. Although that period was now fast approaching, and the propositions had been now submitted for the first time, and although it was desirable that the amplest time should be afforded for consideration and discussion, still, as the minds of all men had long been directed to the principle of this great question, and all the imaginable details of every proposition had received the fullest investigation; and as the propositions before the House, although not in detail, had, in principle, been well considered; and although the proposed period was not very long, yet he considered it fully adequate to the fullest consideration, under the present circumstances. With respect to the proposition itself, he differed from some of the hon. gentlemen who had gone before him; and,
784
although he would not now pledge himself to any opinion, either of approval or disapproval, still there was one observation which he wished to make, with a view to the administering some slight comfort to those gentlemen who, on all occasions, had shown themselves too prone to take alarm at what they considered innovation. They seemed to think, and particularly the hon. baronet, the member for Kent, that the principle of prohibition would be the best and most wholesome kind of protection. But the merit of the proposed plan was, that it combined prohibition with protection. It was in vain to say that, practically speaking, it did not begin at the lower end of the scale with a prohibition; for if there was a price within which wheat could not be imported at a profit—and it was clear that, coupled with the charges for insurance, freight, port dues in this country, and other incidental expenses, there might be such a price— there was an absolute prohibition of importation, when wheat was at that price; so that a measure which in form gave a protecting duty, might practically prove a prohibition. If, when wheat was at such a price, a man imported it without paying the duty, he rendered himself liable to a fine in the Exchequer; and, if he imported it, paying the duty, he would be a loser by bringing it to the English market. He would illustrate what he meant by an example. Let the price of com in England be 55 s. per quarter, the duty on corn imported would then be 30 s.; so that the price of corn bought in the Baltic for 25 s. per quarter, and subsequently brought to England, would be 55 s., independent of the cost of freight, insurance, &c, which would be a dead loss to the importer. Would not, then, the importation of corn from the Baltic be virtually prohibited, whenever the price of corn was 55 s.in the market? He would also give another piece of consolation to the gentlemen of the landed interest; and when he spoke of the landed interest, he did not intend to speak of it invidiously. He had always deprecated, as absurd and mischievous, the practice of speaking of the landed and the commercial interests as opposed to one another. He held by the doctrine of an able individual, who in the last century had commenced his career in trade, and, by his successful enterprise in it, had made himself a great landholder; he meant sir Josiah Child—that "land

785
and trade go together—that they wax and wane together, so that it never is well with trade while land suffers, nor well with land while trade suffers." But, to return to the point from which he had digressed. The landed gentlemen admitted, that 55 s. a quarter in the English market was a prohibition upon importation from foreign countries; but they were not satisfied with it, and wanted more. Now, he would remind them of one fact, which ought to make them satisfied with the present proposition: 25 s. was the price at which wheat could now be purchased in the Baltic; but supposing the English market to be opened, and the additional demand of the English market to be thrown into the foreign market, then, instead of purchasing wheat at 25 s., and then importing it under a duty of 30 s. into the English market, it would be purchased at 30 s. and 35 s. a quarter, and must be imported at that price, under the same duty as before; for the duty was to be imposed, not with regard to the price paid for it abroad, but with regard to the price at which it was selling at home. The corn thus imported would diminish the average at home, and by so doing would increase the protection to the home grower, by raising the price at which foreign grain was to be imported. He did not join in the alarm felt by the agricultural classes; and he had therefore risen for the purpose of giving them the means of relieving it.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, he was sorry that this very important question, with which the public mind had been so much agitated, had been so long deferred. He did not, on that occasion, mean to trespass for many minutes on the attention of the House; but, at the same time, he felt that he should not acquit himself towards his constituents, and towards the public generally, if he did not state his opinion with respect to the principle on which the resolutions now introduced were founded; and which would be discussed more at large on a future occasion. His opinion was not completely in unison with that of any gentleman who had delivered his sentiments on the subject; because his views extended, perhaps, further than theirs. He, however, coincided entirely in almost the whole of what had fallen from the noble lord below him (lord Althorp). He was a decided advocate of free trade in every respect; although, in making that declaration, he knew that he must en-
786
counter those prejudices which the right hon. gentleman opposite had described as scarcely possible to be rooted out of some minds. He was one of those persons who did not think that a free trade in corn would have the baneful effects which were attributed to it. The right hon. gentleman appeared to lament the paucity of writers in defence of these principles; but he could assure the right hon. gentleman that they had been vindicated by many able writers. A free trade was, in fact, essential to all the great interests of the country. It was alike necessary to the commercial, the manufacturing, and the agricultural interests. And, in his opinion, the whole foundation of the doctrine was truly and strongly combined in the few words quoted by his hon. and learned friend below him, as uttered by a commercial character of great eminence. He did not mean to enter at present into the general subject. He merely wished to give the House an idea of what his individual view was; how he intended to meet the present proposition, and how, when it came in a tangible shape before the House, he would endeavour to deal with it. While he paid due respect to the liberality which characterized the plan of the right hon. gentleman opposite; and, while he fully admitted the intelligence of mind with which he brought forward his proposition, still it appeared to him, that he must go to much greater lengths; although, even then, the right hon. gentleman might not go to the extreme point which he himself was ready to advocate, whenever the proper occasion arrived. He gave great credit to the right hon. gentleman for introducing so liberal a modification of the law; but he did not think it went far enough. He conceived that a more extended system was necessary for the interests of all, and more particularly for the agricultural and landed interest of the country; in the welfare of which he must naturally feel a very great concern. He was not standing up to make a sacrifice of one great interest for the benefit of any other; and he would distinctly say, that if the landed interest and the manufacturing interest were really opposed to each other, he would do his duty as the hon. baronet below him (sir T. Lethbridge) had done, in support of that interest with which he was most nearly connected. He would, in such a case, boldly and manfully maintain his opinions, as the hon. baronet had done;

787
but he certainly did not view this question as a struggle between these two interests. He trusted that this great discussion would be carried on, as it had been begun, without any feeling of acrimony; convinced as he was, that the two interests were inseparable, and that it was quite impossible for the one to flourish while the other was decaying. Of this he was perfectly satisfied, that neither commerce nor manufactures could succeed, so long-as the landed interest was in a state of depression. Whenever the subject should come regularly forward, he should be prepared to maintain those doctrines. It did appear to him, that a mistaken feeling had gone abroad on this subject—that a mistake had been made as to the cause of the distress which prevailed—and that, therefore, those measures had not been taken which were the best calculated for the benefit of the country. It seemed to him to be quite extraordinary, that, during the whole course of this discussion, the price of corn had been solely dwelt upon, while that which altered and affected the price of corn, namely, the state of the currency, had not been adverted to. Every gentleman had enlarged on the price of corn as the great source of dissatisfaction; but no one had touched on the other question. He hoped, however, that, on a future occasion, they would examine the state of the currency, which was, in fact, the root of all the evils under which the country laboured.
The House then resumed, the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.