bour employed in the manufactures of France, and what an advantage it must give to the French manufacturers in their attempts to rival us on the continent. He said, "that we ought not to delude ourselves with the notion, that because our manufactures had hitherto been superior in some respects to those of other countries, that superiority would be easily maintained. Our advantage had been principally in our superior capital and establishments, and in the disciplined industry of our workmen. But capital did not belong exclusively to this country: It might easily be exported wherever it could be more profitably employed. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the cotton manufactures of France, but he had conversed with several gentlemen more capable than himself of judging correctly of them; and among the rest with the honour able member for Glasgow (Mr Kirkman Finlay), who had lately visited that country; and they all concurred in expressing their great surprise at the state of those manufactures, at the extraordinary progress which had been made in them during the war, and at the excellent fabrics which they produced." Mr Horner, after remarking that the necessary requisites to enable us to preserve our superiority in our manufactures were two, capital and skill, said, that "these were not necessarily domiciled in this country, but might, like any of the other goods of fortune, take to themselves wings and fly away; and that it was no unfair or unreasonable thing to conjecture, that, if to the different difficulties un der which our manufacturers now laboured, were added the proposed regulations as to the price of corn, these would be speedily followed by a departure from this country of the capital and skill which had hitherto given life to our manufactures, seeing we were about, in the same breath, to VOL. VIII. PART I.

multiply the taxes on our manufactures, and to increase the price of corn."

The proposed law was represented, by some of its opponents, as an undue attempt to extend the system of protection to the landed interest, at the expence of the consumers, the people at large. Mr Baring entered into a long statement to shew, that this measure would have the effect of making the people pay an enormous bounty for the support of the landed interest. The substance of what he said on this head is, that, had there been no corn laws, it appeared, from the prices in the neighbouring countries, that the price of corn in this country would only have been 458. ; but that, the present importation price being 65s, it made a difference of 20. per quarter, which was paid for the protection of the landed interest; and that this, on the whole amount of corn consumed in Britain, would amount to 18,750,000l. paid by the consumers, as a bounty for the support of the landed interest. He went on to shew, in the same way, that, if the importation price were raised to 80s. the bounty which would thus be paid by the people would amount to 32,750,000l. He further stated, that a result of a similar kind might be made out in another way. The number of acres in an arable state amounted at least to sixty millions. Every person who had read the reports would see, that, if no alteration took place in the corn laws, the rent of land must be diminished at least to the extent of 10s. an acre; but the pasture land must also be taken into the estimate. The question was, therefore, whether the country gentlemen should give up 10s. an acre all over the kingdom, or whether the consumers were to pay the growers a sum of 40 or 50 millions a year beyond what they would pay in other circumstances.

Were a reduction of rents over the

kingdom to take place, it was con. tended, that it would produce all the advantages sought by the proposed measure. This would the more certainly happen, as not only the expence of cultivation must be diminished, in consequence of the fall in the price of corn, but the tenants could afford a considerable diminution of their profits. That landholders could afford to reduce their rents, was maintained by Mr Baring, on the ground that they enjoyed greater advantages in this country than in any other. "In France," he observed," might be seen persons of large landed property living on the produce of that property, in the manner of the country gentlemen, and even the nobility, of this island, in former times. But it was only in this country that landed gentlemen could go to great towns, and have great disposable incomes to spend wherever they chose." The effects of the reduction of rent might be inferred from the depositions of some of the witnesses. Mr Brodie, a great Scotch farmer, deposed, that he rented land to the amount of 6000l. per annum, and that some years ago he had only paid 2000l. or 28s per acre. Suppose this gentleman's present rent were reduced by the effects of peace, from 6000l. to 4000, would not this, it was argued by Mr Ba ring, have a material operation on the price of the corn he grew? "It was estimated," he said, "that, of the price of the crops, the portion that came to the landlord on the best soils, was one third; on average soils, perhaps one fourth; and on the wet cold soils, so much talked of, only about one fifth. No man would pretend that it was fit, by means of an act of parliament, to keep up an adventitious rent for the benefit of the owner of the soil; or that the House should be called upon to do more than to enable the farmer to proceed with the cultivation.

The question was, what would so enable him? Of the 80s. per quarter, he would calculate, that the landlord obtained 20s. as his proportion, and that the remainder went to the tenant for profit, and for the discharge of the expences of tillage. Suppose that, instead of 20s. the owner of the land was to receive only 15s., and the profits and expences of the tenant were to be reduced in the same proportion, one fourth, that would leave 60s. as the price which ought to be named, after which grain might be imported into this country. In this way, if a farm were now let for 20007. a year, the landlord would only receive 15007. in future, a diminution which he was able to afford." As to the expences of cultivation, Mr Baring contended, that, "with the exception of taxes, there was not a single article of expence to which a farmer was exposed, that would not be diminished in the same rate with the price of the main article of subsistence." He instanced particularly the article of manure, and observed, that stable dung would of course be increased in quantity; for, if corn were so cheap, more horses would be kept by persons who before were not able to afford them; and therefore manure would not only be greater in quantity, but cheaper in price. With regard to labour, the main expence to which the farmer is exposed, he affirmed, that there was no man who would venture to deny, that the price of la bour would be lowered by the fall of corn. As to the profits of the tenants, Mr Baring said, that "all men would acknowledge that the improvements in the situation, habits, and comfort of the tenants, had kept pace with those of the landlords. Formerly, a farmer thought it a high luxury if he was rich enough to enjoy his ale; but now, on entering their houses, you are not only treated with a bottle of Port, but sometimes even with Madeira.

The sons of these wealthy agriculturists were all fine gentlemen; instead of following the plough, they were following the hounds; and the daughters, instead of milking the cows, were using cosmetics to their hands, that they might look delicate, while strumming on the harpsichord." Mr Baring however admitted, that such a degree of hardship existed as to require some interposition of parliament; and he proposed a temporary remedy, by fixing the importation price at 76s. for a short time, and allowing it to fall back by a gradual diminution.

With regard to the amount of what was called the remunerating price, it was contended, that there was not sufficient evidence to ascertain what it ought to be. It was said, that many of the witnesses who had been examined, had paid no regard to the diminution in the expences of cultivation which must take place in consequence of the fall in the price of corn, but that they had made their calculations invariably upon a high price for labour, and a low price for grain. In consequence of this improper mode of calculating, several persons went much higher than 80s. One witness had stated, that he could not produce corn at less than 96s. ; another had stated 120s; a third from 90s. to 100s.; Mr Arthur Young 87s. ; Mr Driver 96s.; Mr Turnbull 84s.; and Mr Brodie and some others from 84s. to 90s. A great number of these witnesses were much above 80s. and why 80s. should be pitched upon, it was difficult to conjecture. But, besides that several of these witnesses themselves, when more closely examined, made admissions which were inconsistent with the opinions given by them, a num. ber of other witnesses stated the price which would be sufficient to remune rate the farmer considerably under 80s. Some of them had stated from 70s. to 758. as sufficient ;-and the general

conclusion to be drawn from the evidence was, that the farmer could afford to sell his grain at a price a good deal below 80s.

In giving an abstract of the reply made by the supporters of the bill to the arguments brought against it, we shall turn, in the first place, to the remarks made by Lord Binning, in answer to what had been said against the improvement of poor lands. He said, that "if such expressions as had been made use of on the other side were to go forth as the sentiments of the legis lature on the subject, it would cut up all improvement by the roots. The light lands would be first thrown out of cultivation into degenerate and inferior pasture. In many districts of the country a want of capital was still strongly felt; so slow was the application of capital to agriculture, even where there had been encouragement. How much slower, then, would be the application of it, if it was pointedly discouraged by the legislature? When an honourable gentleman (Mr Baring) talked about attempting to cultivate sand and rocks, did he recollect what was the state of the county of Norfolk, before the new and scientific system of agriculture had been, introduced there? Had he forgotten what was due to the exertions of the late Lord Townshend? Norfolk was now a pattern to other counties which were more favoured in their soil. From the improvements of agriculture, we might now see the progress of cultivation up the sides of hills, which had never before been ploughed. But what was to become of such land as that of Norfolk, if such employment of capital were discouraged? What, also, was to become of the comparatively poor land of Scotland, which of late presented such a grateful prospect? Every man who loved his country must be alarmed at the very idea of any retrograde motion in such a flou

rishing system; yet such was the threatened consequence of rejecting the measure under consideration, not only to England and Scotland, but to Ireland also, the adequate encouragement of whose agriculture was so essentially necessary to the prosperity, the tranquillization, and to the civili. zation of a great people."

The argument of Earl Grey and Mr Horner, that the bill could afford no protection to the English farmer against the Irish cultivators, who could produce corn at a cheaper rate than in England, was adverted to by Lord Liverpool, who admitted, that grain might be raised cheaper in Ireland than in England; but this, he contended, presented no objection to the bill. "The object was, not the protection of the English or the Irish landlord, but the general interests of the empire, the general interests of its agriculture, and the general interests of the great mass of consumers in the whole united kingdom. Even if the consequence must be to lower the rents of the English landlords, and raise those of the Irish landlords, still this formed no argument whatever, in his view of the question, against the bill, which embraced the whole interests of the empire."

In answer to the argument against the bill, that this country could not be made to furnish a permanent supply for its inhabitants, and that, in attempting to do so, land must be brought into cultivation at such an expence as must raise the price of corn much above the rate at which it might be obtained from abroad, the following remarks were made by the Earl of Lauderdale:He said, that "the supply of grain from foreign countries was very small, in proportion to that from our own soil. The whole quantity of grain consumed in Great Britain was estimated at 40 millions of quarters, of which only 1,200,000 on

an average were imported. To produce a cheap supply, would it not be wiser to encourage the producers of the greater quantity than those who supplied the lesser quantity? The price of 80s. would be a maximum; for, if the price rose above that sum for six weeks, there would be a most abundant importation from the opposite side of the Channel. It was a great mistake to proceed on the supposition that the trade in grain was free, while there were so many taxes which pressed on our agriculturists. If the importation were open, there would be a bounty on foreign growers to import into our markets. Five millions of quarters might in that case be imported. Such a state of things laid our subsistence at the mercy of foreign powers; and they might raise a navy against us by limiting the trade to their own ships. If our manufactures were to be destroyed by high prices, foreign states might, in such a state of things, put an end to them at once by stopping importation. On the other hand, we had experience that encouragement would produce low pricesas, for instance, in the cotton trade, the iron trade, and even in the trade of grain itself, the price of which, under a system of efficient protection, and with a bounty on exportation, had continued to fall for a whole century. It was chimerical to suppose, that the farmers could combine to raise the price of corn, when they could not combine in any one thing. The consequence of a free importation would be, that, in abundant years, the market would be overstocked with foreign corn,-in scarce years, foreign nations, for their own preservation, would be obliged to hold back their supply. The small quantity which we now imported might be very well supplied by our own farmers. Capital was not wanting, nor was the capital required to produce 1,200,000 quarters, in ad

dition to the present quantity, great. All that was required was security; for the farmers would not apply their capital without that security being af forded to their occupation, which was given to all other lines in which capi tal was employed.”

On the subject of the effects which it was supposed the proposed loan would have on our manufactures, by raising the price of labour, and thus rendering our mannfacturers unable to compete with foreigners; it was contended by the supporters of the bill, in the first place, that it was quite à mistake to suppose, that the market price of corn would be as high as the importation price. In addition to the remarks on this subject by the Earl of Lauderdale, above quoted, we may select the following observations by Lord Liverpool. He contended, that "it had been most fallaciously argued, that the import price of 80s. would be the minimum price of the market. This was negatived by all experience, it appearing by the returns, that the market price had been uniformly below the import price, except in years of scarcity, and the following year, when the consequences of scarcity were necessarily felt. Instead of being the minimum, the import price had been more generally the maximum in the market. There was, therefore, no ground for believing, that the import price of 80s. would be generally the minimum price in the market. Even admitting, however, that the price would be 80s., still the price of the quartern loaf ought not to be more than 1s., a price which could not now be felt by the consumer as an evil."

Mr Western denied that the importation price was the lowest at which corn could be sold in England after the measure in contemplation was car ried into effect; and on this subject he referred for proof to the experience

of former times. "While 62s. was the protecting price, and while a bounty was given on exportation for a considerable period, the average price of wheat had been as low as 30s. per quarter. A more recent instance of this might be given from the rapidity with which the price of wheat had declined in 1813; when, in consequence of the expectations entertained of a peace, its value had sunk to little more than half of what it had been. From the papers on the table, this would be seen from the Deptford and Portsmouth contract prices in February and November in that year. The contract price at Deptford for wheat was, in February 100s. per quarter. In November it was 65s. 2d., and during this period it was to be remarked, more corn was exported from, than imported into Great Britain and Ireland. The Portsmouth contract price was in February 102s., in November, 67s. 2d."

Mr Western said, that " if he were to allow, that there was a necessity that grain should be higher in this country than in foreign countries, that necessity arose out of our taxation. But this difference did not need to give that serious alarm to our manufacturers which they seemed to feel. Grain was not higher in proportion in this country to what it was in foreign countries, now, than it was sixty years ago. On this subject he confessed he was not possessed of such ample information as he could have wished. But he would take, with regard to France, the information furnished by M. de Montesquieu, the minister of the interior, who, in his projet of a law tò regulate the exportation of grain, went back a considerable way in his examination of the prices in France. According to this projet, the price of wheat in France, from 1756 to 1788, was 25s. 10d. per quarter, English money. During the same period of