this most material point, had they, he would ask them, such information as to enable them to say what price ought to be fixed? A great deal of evidence had been adduced on this subject, but not of a satisfactory nature, often resting on data, which, when examined, would not bear the test, the same witness often affording the best means for refuting his own statement, one part of his testimony being at

after the conclusion of their laborious in- I would admit the importation of foreign vestigation, who thus stated their conviccorn. This was fixed in the Bill brought tion, that before their lordships proceeded up that day at 80s. Now with respect to to make any alteration, they would call for farther evidence by an inquiry, conducted in some way or other before their lordships House. Since the printing of that immense body of evidence, a general discontent had spread throughout the country; the petitioners at the bar stated, that in their opinion the measure proposed would be injurious to the trading and mànufacturing interests of the country; and yet, without one additional tittle of evi-variance with another, and different witdence, were they now to turn round on the petitioners and say to them, they were determined to hear nothing farther on the subject. This Report, in the opinion of the committee itself, was confessedly incomplete. If they wished to allay the discontents of the country, this was most assuredly a strange mode of proceeding. But he knew that it would be said by the noble earl opposite, that though no farther inquiry had taken place, certain facts had since come out, so obvious both in their causes and their effects, that it was impossible any longer to doubt of the necessity of the present measure. Upon the particular facts on which this rested, he should have something to say when they came to a farther stage of the discussion; but from what he had been told had passed before it was in his power to attend his duty in parliament, he understood that there were many persons of the committee who had recommended further inquiry, who now were of opinion that it was proper to desist from making such inquiry.

It was his duty now to state the particular point on which further information was required, and without which they would be proceeding to legislate on some most important points, as he conceived, without due knowledge of the subject. It was not, in his opinion, necessary to admit the general principle of the propriety of Parliament interfering for the protection of the agriculture of the country. Making no such admission, therefore, but for the sake of the present argument supposing the principle established that such interference was requisite, the question then was, in what manner they were about to interfere, and if they were sufficiently informed as to the nature and probable effect of the regulations which they were about to establish? The first point was, the regulation of the price at which they (VOL. XXX.)

nesses having delivered the most different
opinions. Looking at these opinions, he
was altogether at a loss to conceive why
80s. should be stated as the proper sum
at which foreign corn might be imported.
Many persons had been examined as to
the price at which the grower of grain
could afford to sell it in the market. One
witness stated that he could not produce
it at less than 96s.; another had stated
120s.; a third from 90s. to 100s.; Mr.
Arthur Young, $78.; Mr. Driver, 96s.;
Mr. Turnbull, 84s.; and Mr. Brodie and
some others, from 84 to 90s. A great
number of these witnesses were much
above 80s. ; and why 80s. should be pitched
upon he certainly could not conjecture.
In looking at the calculations on which
many of those opinions were founded, it
was impossible for him not to say that
they appeared to him to be conducted on
a principle which stated the expenses of
the agriculturist much higher than they
ought to be, and there was therefore no
sufficient groundwork for these opinions.
In saying this he did not wish to be un-
derstood as imputing any improper mo-
tives to the gentlemen who gave this evi-
dence. It was natural for men in their
situation to act as they had done. But
this he would state, that there were per-
sons of no less authority than those who
had been examined by their lordships'
committee, who had given an opinion di-
rectly the contrary-there were persons
as respectable in every way, who had
given their opinions that a price a great
way below this was sufficient for the
farmer. He observed his noble friend
(the earl of Lauderdale) looking as if he
disputed the truth of this assertion; he
would inform him, that he did not allude
to the evidence taken before the committee
of their lordships, but the evidence before
the committee of the House of Commons;
and here he must say, that notwithstand-

(K)

ing the obligations which they were under to the diligence and ability of the noble lords by whom the inquiry was conducted, it was impossible not to perceive that the questions and examinations had often been influenced by a partial view of the subject; and that, if the witnesses had been more accurately examined, many of them who appeared at first view favourable to the measure would in reality have appeared adverse to it. There was evidence before the House of Commons supporting the opinion that much less than 80s. was sufficient.

his opinion might lead to. Mr. Crabtree stated from 70s. to 75s. as sufficient; Mr. Mant and another gentleman thought 75s. and 72s. were ample protection. With this evidence, that 75s. or 72s. would be a sufficient protection, he would ask them on what ground they adopted 80s. as a protection? Many of those witnesses who had been examined, and whose evidence had been represented as favourable to the Bill, would, if further examined, afford a contradiction of this. He alluded in particular to one gentleman, Mr. Wakefield, very eminent in his line, who had great Mr. Driver, the first witness examined experience and great knowledge, both by the committee of the House of Com- with respect to this country and to Iremons, stated, that in his opinion 5l. per land, and who had been represented as quarter was absolutely necessary to pro- stating 80s. to be a proper protecting price tect the farmer against the foreign grower to the farmer. He believed he might state that there should be an absolute probi- from authority, that Mr. Wakefield's opibition of importation till the price arrived nion was against the present measure. If at 90s, and that from 90s. to 51. there he had been represented as stating that should be a duty on a decreasing scale. 80s. was a fair remunerating price to the Being, however, asked, if he was of opi- farmer, and if he was a man conversant nion that if 181. or 20l. a load could be on the subject, and capable of giving their obtained as an average price, the im- lordships much useful information, and the provement of the agriculture of the coun-data on which this opinion, unfavourable try would continue progressively to into the Bill, was founded, their lordships crease, he answered that he thought it would surely allow him to be further exawould pretty much; that would not alarm mined on the subject. There were other the people the cultivation of the country persons also, though he had not authority would continue, if not increase. Now to name them, who would state an unfahere he would only remark, that wheat vourable opinion, and what was of most at 201. a load would be 10s. a bushel, and importance to them, the grounds on which at 181. a load 9s. a bushel, which was ex- that opinion was founded. Among those actly 72s. the quarter, so that, even at 72s. persons whose habits made them conversant a quarter, one of those persons who had in subjects of this kind, and who thought stated that the foreigner should be ex- 80s. too high, and that 72s. was a sufficluded till the price reached 51. still cient protecting price, there was one perthought that the English farmer could be son, whom he could not with propriety sufficiently protected. Another witness, name in that House, or allude to (sir James Mr. Claridge, who stated the price at 80s. Graham), who had of late paid particular. being asked if, in his opinion, the inferior attention to the investigation of this sublands in Yorkshire, and other counties he ject, and who had in an opinion given had described, would be thrown out of somewhere else stated himself in favour the cultivation of wheat, if the price were of the lowest of these sums. This person to be Ss. a bushel, the prices of sheep, was well known to be connected with some wool, and other produce, excepting wheat, of the greatest land estates in the kingremaining nearly at their present rate? dom; and he had declared that in all the answered, that he thought, under those communications he had had with farmers circumstances, the cultivation of wheat and surveyors of credit, he had never would be discontinued. Being afterwards heard that the agriculturist would not be asked, would those lands remunerate the sufficiently protected at a prohibitory refarmer, if the price of barley and oats were gulation of 72s. If they had this high autho reduced in proportion to that of wheat? rity against the price of 80s., was not this, He answered, perhaps they might; he he would ask, a point which they ought to could not say but what they might. Here, inquire into, and ascertain, before they therefore, was evidence, which in one part proceeded to legislate on so important a of it certainly bore a very different con- subject? struction from that which the first part of

Though he had hitherto only stated the

He conceived that he had already made out a strong case for this inquiry, by showing, first, that there was no satisfac tory evidence that 80s. was required for England; in the next place, that there was no evidence to show that this sum was requisite for Ireland, but that on the con trary there were strong reasons for presuming that a much cheaper price wouldbe sufficient for that country; and, lastly, that England and Ireland together were proceeding to enact a law by which the English farmer would be exposed to those very evils which it was the intention of this measure to remove. Before they could fix the price at 80s. it was necessary not only to know whether this sum was requi

argument as applicable to England, with grower. But, then, what became of the respect to Ireland, the case was still protection to English agriculture, the poor stronger. But though they were urged lands, which would be thrown out of culto this measure as much for the sake of tivation, and the numerous other mischiefs Ireland as of England, and though the which were to follow the want of this greatest number of petitions praying for protection? [Hear, hear!] This effect some relief were from that country, yet would be infallibly produced, and all the he would say that there was not one tittle advantages which they promised themof evidence before their lordships to shew selves from this measure would be deat what rate grain could be grown and feated, unless at the same time that they sold by the Irish agriculturist. In the protected the English farmer against the House of Commons some evidence had foreign grower, they also repealed the been obtained on that subject, but it was beneficial law of 1806, by which corn was contradictory. Mr. Wakefield said he allowed to be imported from Ireland into thought 70s. sufficient: another gentle- this country. All he said that they ought man said 64s. The general result, how-to ascertain was, whether these effects ever, of the evidence before the House of were likely to follow or not. They ought Commons respecting Ireland was, that to inquire whether the English farmer grain could be grown at a much less price should be supported or left open to the in that country than in England. And as competition which he had here stated. far as his information went, from the state of labour and the comparative low taxation in Ireland, corn, under a moderate rent, could be grown at a much less rate than any of the sums which had been stated. Looking, therefore, at Ireland, in particular, he would say that there was no evidence that any protection was required for that country; but if some protection was necessary for the safety of the English farmer, what would be the effect produced by this measure? It must produce one of two effects. By fixing the protecting price at 80s. it would have the effect of keeping up the price to the consumer to that sum, and would thus give the grower a greater remuneration than was necessary, and would thus keep up the rents of the land-site for Ireland, but also at what rate corn holders of Ireland at the expense of the people of England; or it would have this other effect as grain was grown in Ireland much cheaper than it could be grown in England, they would be enabling the Irish grower to undersell the English farmer in the market of England, which would render the present measure an insufficient protection to the English farmer. Would any man say that any of these effects were of so unimportant a nature that it was not necessary to inquire into them before coming to a determination? The Irish grower would be able very much to undersell the English grower, and with the number of Irish absentee landlords, resident in England, to whom remittances must be made, and with the interest on their public debt due in England, the Irish grower would be under the inevitable necessity of bringing his corn to England, and would thus undersell the English

could be imported from foreign countries. Here, also, the information of which the House was in possession was defective. When their lordships committee were sitting, the only importation into this country came from the Baltic; and the whole tendency of the evidence before that committee was to shew that corn could not be imported from the Baltic, without a loss, under 75s. One person, Mr. Solly, stated, that it could not be imported much under 80s., but in general the witnesses agreed that it could not be imported under 75s. If, therefore, the evidence went to shew that 75s. or 72s. was a sufficient protecting price to the English landholder, as far as the foreign importer was concerned, there was no evidence to shew that the public interest could be in any wise affected. But it was now found that the Baltic was not the only place from which corn might be imported. By

did not mean to object to the general
principle of extending protection to agri-
culture; that was equally just as applied
to agriculture as to the woollen trade, the
coal trade, and other branches of com-
merce. The question was, what protec-
tion was required by the actual circum-
stances of the case? He was aware that
agricultural distress existed to a great ex-
tent; he knew that in his own neighbour-
hood it existed to a considerable extent.
The pressure on the farmer of course ex-
tended in an aggravated degree to the
labourer. Still, however, it should be re-
collected what the price of wheat was for
a few years previous to 1813, and even in
that year, although a year of great plenty,
the price of wheat was 120s. It was im-
possible, therefore, to suppose that so
much distress would have arisen in a short
time from a fall in the price of wheat, un-
less arising from that general derangement
of interests which resulted from the effects
of a long and expensive war. All these
therefore formed strong and essential
grounds for inquiry, in order that they
might ascertain with correctness what they
were actually doing, and what was, in
fact, required to be done. All parties
would be satisfied if a case was properly
made out. The ports were now shut
against importation, and would remain so
for three months to come; no inconve-
nience therefore could arise from delay.
His lordship concluded by moving "to
institute a further inquiry relative to the
state of the growth, commerce, and con-
sumption of grain, and the state of the

actual price to be 80s. the quartern loaf
ought not to be more than 1s. But what
was the fact? At the present price of 60s.
the quartern loaf was 1s. and therefore at
80s. one third more, the price of the
quartern loaf must be 1s. 4d. He admitted
that this arose from the mode of setting
the assize of bread; but did not this form
an important subject of inquiry, in order
that they might ascertain the details of
the manufacture of flour, and the manner
of setting the assize? They might thus
confer an important benefit upon the con-
sumers, by lowering the price of bread,
which would tend at once to allay the po-
pular ferment. But to do this they must
institute an inquiry, without which they
could not legislate with any advantage or
satisfaction. Another assertion had been
made and denied, that the import price
would be the minimum price in the market,
and that wheat would never be sold at a
less rate. He did not mean to assert that
such must necessarily be the effect of the
measure; but the House had no informa-
tion to enable them to legislate upon the
subject with any certainty, as to what
would be the actual effect upon the price
of wheat. He had looked into the tables,
comparing them with the averages for
several years back, and he had found that
the market price of wheat had been often
below the import price, but sometimes
much above it, and that there was fre-
quently a very considerable difference be-
tween the average price and the real
price. Upon these points the House was
destitute of information, and this formed
an essential ground for going into the in-laws relating thereto."
quiry which he intended to propose. They
did not know whether the import price
might be the maximum or the minimum
price in the market, or what effect the
measure would have on the market price.
How, then, could they legislate?

There was still another point applicable to this subject of the greatest importance, he alluded to the state of the circulation. Would it be contended that SOS. now, particularly after the sanguine prospect held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the resumption of cash-payments in the next year, was the same as 80s. would be when a regular and healthy circulation was restored? This, then, was a point on which the House required information, and without which they could not safely proceed to legislate. In thus detailing the grounds on which he thought further inquiry necessary, he certainly

The Earl of Derby declared his conviction, that the petitions of his fellow-subjects were always entitled to the most serious consideration. This opinion he had held through life, and he was the less likely to abandon it on such an occasion, when the table was crowded with them. He had presented many himself, with the prayers of which, unfortunately, he could not agree; but as they were all dictated by the most honourable and conscientious motives, they should be attended to. He would even go so far as to say, that, as long as there was a single man in the country who wished to petition, Parliament ought to pause. He therefore recommended to their lordships to agree to the motion. It was impossible for them, even if they could pass the Bill to-night and obtain the Regent's assent to-morrow, to prevent the discussions which they