THE HE subject which received the greatest share of the attention of parliament this year, was the state of the corn laws. The unexampled distress of the agricultural interest, the ruinous effects of which were now felt by every class of the community, rendered it a matter of paramount importance to endeavour to find some remedy for an evil of such fearful magnitude. It will be recollected, that, in the preceding year, a bill was brought into parliament for protecting the agriculturists by additional restrictions on the importation of corn; but that this bill was not passed. Committees, however, were appointed by both Houses, for the purpose of enquiring into the cause of the agricultural distress, and the means of relieving it. These committees entered into long and laborious investigations, in the course of which they examined a great number of individuals, who, from their situation or pursuits, were supposed to be most qualified to afford useful information; and after these enquiries had been completed, and the reports of both committees had been laid before their respective Houses, Mr Robinson, on 17th February, 1815, brought for ward, in a committee of the whole House of Commons, the following resolutions :

1. Resolved, "That it is the opi

nion of this committee, that any sort of foreign corn, meal, or flour, which may by law be imported into the united kingdom, shall at all times be allowed to be brought to the united kingdom and to be warehoused there, without payment of any duty whatever.

2. "That such corn, meal, and flour, so warehoused, may at all times be taken out of the warehouse, and be exported without payment of any duty whatever.

3. "That such corn, meal, or flour, so warehoused, may be taken out of the warehouse, and be entered for home consumption in the united kingdom, without payment of any duty whatever, whenever foreign corn, meal, or flour, of the same sort, shall by law be admissible into the united kingdom for home consumption.

4. "That such foreign corn, meal, or flour, shall be permitted to be imported into the united kingdom, for home consumption, without payment of any duty, whenever the average prices of the several sorts of British corn, made up and published in the manner now by law required, shall be at or above the prices hereafter specified, viz. Per Qr. 80s.

Wheat..........
Rye, Pease, and Beans...... 53s.
Barley, Beer, or Bigg....... 40s.
Oats..........

26s.

But that, whenever the average prices of British corn shall respectively be below the prices above stated, no foreign corn, or meal, or flour, made from any of the respective sorts of foreign corn above enumerated, shall be allowed to be imported or taken out of warehouse for home consumption, nor shall any foreign flour be at any time importable into Ireland.

5. "That the average prices of the several sorts of British corn, by which the importation of foreign corn, meal, or flour, into the united kingdom is to be regulated and governed, shall continue to be made up and published in the manner now required by law; but that, if it shall hereafter at any time appear that the average prices of Bri tish corn, in the six weeks immediately succeeding the 15th February, 15th May, 15th August, and 15th November in each year, shall have fallen below the prices at which foreign corn, meal, or flour, are by law allowed to be imported for home consumption, no such foreign corn, meal, or flour, shall be allowed to be imported into the united kingdom for home consumption, from any place between the rivers Eyder and Garonne, both inclusive, until a new average shall be made up and published in the London Gazette, for regulating the importation into the united kingdom for the succeeding quarter.

6. "That such corn, meal, or flour, being the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, as may now by law be imported into the united kingdom, may hereafter be imported for home consumption, without payment of any duty, whenever the average prices of British corn, made up and published as by law required, shall be at or above the prices hereafter specified, viz. Wheat........

Per Qr. 67s

Rye, Pease, and Beans...... 44s. Barley, Beer, or Bigg....... 33s. Oats...................................................................

22s.

But that, whenever the prices of British corn respectively shall be below the prices above specified, corn, or meal, or flour, made from any of the respective sorts of corn above enumerated, the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, shall no longer be allowed to be imported into the united kingdom for home consumption.

7. "That such corn, meal, or flour, the produce of any British colony or plantation in North America, as may now by law be imported into the united kingdom, shall at all times be permitted to be brought there and warehoused, without payment of any duty whatever.

9. "That such corn, meal, or flour, so warehoused, may be taken out of warehouse, and entered for home con sumption in the united kingdom, whenever corn, meal, or flour, of the like description, imported direct from any such colony or plantation, shall be admissible for home consumption, but not otherwise."

On

These resolutions were discussed at great length in the committee on the 17th, 22d, and 23d February, when they were agreed to. On the 27th a long debate took place on the ques tion, whether the report of the committee should be brought up, which was carried in the affirmative. 28th February the resolutions of the committee were agreed to by the House, and leave given to bring in a bill upon these resolutions. On 1st March the bill was accordingly presented by Mr Robinson, and read a firs time; and every stage of its progress, till it was passed on the 10th of March, was accompanied by long and animated debates. On the 13th March the bill was brought into the House of Lords, and read a first time. the same time a motion was made by Earl Grey for a further enquiry into the state of the corn laws, which, after a long discussion, was negatived by a

At

large majority. The bill, in all its stages, was discussed as fully as it had been in the Lower House, and on 20th March it was passed. Besides the debates on the bill, a great deal of incidental discussion took place in consequence of a number of petitions which were presented against it

We shall endeavour to give as correct a view as possible of the argu ments used by the opposite parties in the debates on this important question, endeavouring to throw them, as far as it can be done, into the form of a connected discussion.

It was contended, in the first place, by the supporters of the bill, that this measure was necessary in consequence of the general system adopted, not only in this, but in every other commercial country, of protecting and encouraging the different branches of industry by legislative provisions of different kinds. It was, no doubt, recognised as a general principle in political economy, that the legislature ought not to interfere in matters of commerce, but that the course of trade ought to be left to itself. This general principle, however, could not be acted upon by one nation, unless all the other nations, or at least the most considerable ones, were also to adopt it. In such a state of the world, each nation might purchase whatever commodities it required from those quarters where they could be produced and brought home at the cheapest rate and of the best quality. But the period, unfortunately, was not arrived when the world should be so enlightened as to act generally upon any such principle. Each nation endeavours to protect and encourage its own commerce and manufactures, at the expence of other nations, by duties on the importation of the produce of other countries, or by absolute prohibition of such im portation: And, while such is the system adopted by the world in general,

no single nation can act on a different one without disadvantage. Accordingly, a great body of legislative provisions have been made in this country for the protection of our trade and manufactures. These had, in the course of time, been extended into such a complicated system, that the legislature had often found it necessary to protect particular branches of industry, in order to prevent them from falling a sacrifice to other descriptions of industry, even in this country, which, in consequence of some previous provisions, would have been otherwise more favoured. In consequence of all this, our manufactures had been encouraged by such high protecting duties, amounting frequently to prohibi. tions, that foreign manufactures were completely excluded from competition in our market: For example (as stated by Mr J. P. Grant,) woollen cloths imported paid 100%. per cent. .; cotton goods 85l. 10s. per cent. ; glass 114. per cent.; brass and copper goods 591. per cent.; earthen ware 791. per cent.; dressed leather 1427. per cent. ; gold and silver goods 80.; gilt ware 100l. &c. It was admitted, that this system of legislative enactments may have been carried too far; but it has been so long acted upon that the state of the country has adapted itself to it. There is no idea of doing it away; and indeed it would be impossible. In such circumstances, it follows, that not to protect any one branch of agricultural industry, while all other branches are protected, is positively to discourage it; and surely, of all branches, this is the last that ought to be discouraged. This argument, as to the expediency of reciprocal protection, was not confined to the case of commerce and agriculture, as viewed in connection with each other; for it was also to be considered, that one branch of agricultural produce was already protected. The importation

of foreign cattle was prohibited; but if protection was to be given to any description of agricultural produce, it should chiefly be given to grain. It was farther remarked, that Adam Smith himself admitted that there were cases in which it would be advisable to lay burdens on the competition of foreigners. One of these was, when such a measure was necessary for the defence of the country, and he instanced the navigation act. Another case was, when a tax was imposed on the production of the commodity at home. Agricultural produce might be said to be in this situation; for it was the same thing whether a tax was imposed on the production of a commodity, or whether it was excluded from benefits enjoyed by other branches of industry. It was observed by Mr Morritt, that "the farmers were load. ed with the support of the ecclesiastical establishment, the support of the poor, which had been of late years much increasing, and of the roads, which were of so much benefit to the commerce of the interior. How should it be said then, that there was a freedom of trade, if the agriculturists were subjected to so many burdens without countervailing advantages?"

In the second place, it was argued, that if an adequate protection was not offered to the growers of corn, a great part of the land in this country now in tillage must be thrown out of cultivation, and that we should be obliged to draw a considerable proportion of our supply of grain from abroad; the consequences of which would be, not only that the prices would be higher than if we had been able to provide for our own consumption, but that we should be placed in the alarming situation of depending for our subsistence on the pleasure of foreign, and probably hostile nations.

The manner in which a refusal to grant a protection to the agriculturist

would operate in throwing a portion of the land out of cultivation, was explained by Mr Robinson, who observed, that the great increase of agriculture which had taken place during the last twenty years, had inevitably been accompanied by an increase of charge to the consumer. It was well known, that those parts of the country which were so fruitful as not to require a great deal of cultivation, when compared with the population, could only produce sustenance to a limited extent; and in proportion as that population increased, and the number of manufacturing establishments became extended, in the same proportion did the call for agricultural produce increase. But the supply to this increased demand could only come from that species of land which could not be cultivated without very considerable expense; and the produce, therefore, of this kind of land, if cultivated at all, must necessarily be sold at a dear rate."-Mr Robinson went on to shew, that if, in consequence of a supply of foreign corn, the market was so depressed as not to afford the cultivator of those inferior lands such a price as would remunerate him, they must, of course, be allowed to go out of cultivation.-The fact on which this reasoning mainly depended, that domestic corn could not contend in our markets with foreign corn, seemed to be nearly agreed on by all parties. Indeed it appeared to be proved by the reports and the evidence, that with out some alteration in the existing laws, we must be undersold by foreigners in our own markets. The growers of foreign corn were not so heavily loaded with taxes as ours, and consequently could afford to sell it cheaper. Mr Huskisson stated, that large imports from France had arrived on the southern coast of England, where the markets were so overstocked that the English farmer could not get a bidding

for his corn at any price; that he had seen the invoices of those cargoes, and that after all the charges of convey. ance were added, the corn so exported could be sold for 50s. per quarter.

In such a state of things as this, with a diminished cultivation at home, and an increased importation from abroad, it was argued, that the price of corn would, in the end, become higher than if we had kept ourselves independent of foreign supply, and, indeed, that the country would generally be in a state of want and scarci⚫ ty. "For a time," said Mr Robin. son, "there might be abundance, but in the long run we should be reduced to great want and distress. Suppose that, relying on the importations of foreign corn, and paying for it, for a considerable length of time, at a lower rate, as we might do,-suppose the consequence of this to be, that our own produce was diminished. Suppose that, in this situation of things, a scarcity occurred abroad and at home; in that case we could not get corn, and thus we should have to contend with a double deficiency." But there were many other causes besides scarcity which might impede or prevent our supply from foreign nations. The nations now able to supply us, might, in the course of time, be prevented from doing so by their own increasing wealth and population. They might be prevented by the policy, or impolicy of their governments. It was said by Mr Western, that, in France, the importation would cease by law when corn became 49s. per quarter; and he asked, what security had this country for a constant supply from France? He added, that, in 1764, the French issued a decree respecting the trade in grain, to the effect that all corn exported should be conveyed in French ships, navigated by French seamen; and he asked, what should prevent other countries from following a simi

lar practice, if they found we depended on them for food for our population? Another cause of the precariousness of our foreign supply arose from the chance of our going to war with the nations from whom it was derived. "For the long continuance of peace with France," Lord Binning said, "he placed the firmest confidence in the wise and virtuous prince who had succeeded our bitter enemy, and in the moderation of the government of this country. But should we be driven into a war with France, her hostility would be tremendous when she found herself at once our enemy and our granary. He hoped, indeed, that even wars might be conducted on more liberal principles than hitherto, but still he could not think of risking the entire subsistence of the nation on such a hope, nor be content to rely on the precarious generosity of an enemy for that which was most necessary to our own subsistence. Famine, as applied to fortresses, was one of the most common, as well as one of the most dreadful means of conducting hostility; and what was recognized as a legal mode of warfare on a small scale, might easily be extended to the blockading of whole lines of sea-coast, and the famishing whole nations."

On this subject some striking observations were made by Mr Grattan. He remarked, that "much had been said of the commercial relationship of the country, by those who seem to have forgotten that her political relationship was much more important. The existence of the nation depended on grain; those who supplied us had our lives in their hands-they were the masters of our very being; our resources, our finances, our trade, must depend on the will of others; and would it be wise to put the trident itself into the hands of those who would be our enemies the moment it ceased to be their interest to be our