chance of success, it is not easy to imagine what could have been lord Holland's intention in bringing it forward.

Several other bills were passed, calculated to improve our internal legislation. Among these, an act for facilitating the business of the Court of King's-bench, and another, to enable landlords to recover more speedily possession of farms, unlawfully held over by tenants, ought to be particularly noticed. The attention of the public was likewise directed afresh to the defects of the administration of justice in Wales. A committee had been appointed to inquire into this subject in 1817, and had taken evidence upon it to a considerable extent; but, in consequence of the death of the chairman, the late Mr. Ponsonby, no report was ever made. A motion was now made for the

A

appointment of a committee, to consider the state of the courts of judicature in Wales, and the propriety of abolishing the same. very animated debate followed, which was enriched with much personal allusion and sarcasm, excited probably by the circumstance, that the office of chief justice of Chester was held by Mr. Charles Warren, who had formerly been an adherent of opposition. The general opinion of the more moderate part of the House of Commons, seemed to be, that, though the independent judicature of Wales ought not to be abolished, it admitted of considerable improvements. Accordingly, a select committee was appointed to inquire into the laws relating to the administration of justice in Wales, and to report their opinions thereon.

curred more than once in the House of Commons, upon some of the agricultural petitions which were presented to it.

On the 30th of May, the subject was brought fully before parliament, by Mr. Holme Sumner, the member for Surrey, upon a motion, that the petitions relating to agricultural distresses be referred to a select committee, to consider the matter thereof, and report their opinion to the House. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gooch, member for Suffolk. The grounds which were advanced by the mover and seconder in support of it, were chiefly, the soundness of the principle, and the inefficacy of the provisions of the present law. Parliament, it was said, had determined, in 1815, that a remunerating price of 80s. per quarter should be secured to the farmer; but the bill, which was passed with that view, had not answered its intended purpose. Such was the inaccurate manner in which the averages under it were ascertained, that corn was made to appear to be at 80s. per quarter, at the very time when the farmer was actually getting only 72s. In some instances, these averages were taken in districts where little corn was grown, and where, of course, the price was enhanced by the expenses of carriage; in others, they were made up by persons, who, being themselves dealers in corn, had an interest in keeping up the apparent price. The farmers surely were entitled to have the provisions of the law of 1815 made effectual, so as not to be defeated by fraud or accident; and this was all that they demanded. They had a right to peculiar protection, be VOL. LXII.

cause they supported a larger proportion of the public burdens than the other classes of the community. The whole expense of the church establishment, the whole of the county rates, the whole expense of highways (except so far as they were defrayed by turnpikes), and the far greater portion of the poor-rates, were borne by them. From the year 1806 to the year 1814 agriculture had prospered to an unexampled, extent; from 1814, downwards, it had been in a course of rapid deterioration; and, unless something was done to stop the exhaustion of capital embarked in it, ruin of an irretrievable character must fall on those who were connected with it. It was not to attack the commercial or manufacturing interests, that the petitioners had applied to that House; on the contrary, they felt that the interests of all classes were so intimately and inseparably united, that not one of them could fall into decay without entailing inevitable destruction on the rest; and, for that very reason, they were convinced that protection afforded to the farmers was protection to the community at large. The doctrine, that we should buy our corn where we can get it cheapest, could not be listened to; for, if the manufacturer bought his bread in the foreign market, the farmer at home could not purchase his manufactures, and, finally, both would suffer.

The arguments, by which Mr. Frankland Lewis supported the motion for going into a committee, were of a different kind, and proceeded rather upon the necessity of revising the present law, than upon approbation of the [F]

principles, or agreement with the plans, of the petitioners. Extended inquiry was, he thought, desirable, in order to relieve the farmer from that state of feverish anxiety in which he was kept, by a perpetual attention to averages and importing prices. A refusal to inquire was not the best means of tranquillising the public mind. Unquestionably, the same principles of encouragement, which applied to manufactures, did not apply to agriculture, because the former were susceptible of the highest degree of improvement, and the utmost degree of cheapness; but the latter, when extended, must, by being driven to inferior land, have its produce raised in price. Unfortunately, no interests were more at variance, than those of the owner and oc

cupier of land. The landlord had but one object-that of obtaining the highest rent; but the tenant, whatever might be his interest under an existing lease, could derive no advantage from protecting prices, when that lease expired. As a permanent system, he must lose rather than gain by it; because, whatever tended to raise the price of labour, must diminish the profits of stock. The present system was evidently injurious to him; for, in the event of a more than average crop, he could not export till the price fell below the average, not of this country merely, but of that to which he exported. On the other hand, when a season of scarcity happened, instead of obtaining a proportionally higher price, the farmer was exposed to a competition with every other nation in the world. These two contingeneies had the effect of placing him in a far worse situation, than

that in which he had been accustomed to stand, under ordinary circumstances. The views to which he called the attention of the House were very important, especially to the renters of the land, who, in this case, formed the most numerous class of petitioners; and, therefore, it was extremely desirous that an opportunity should be afforded for going particularly into this branch of the question. There was another reason which ought to induce the House to examine the question-namely, because the mode, in which protection was at present given, was very inconvenient. The existing system operated as a prohibition to a certain extent; and, as it so operated, it must occasion a sudden alternation from a prohibition to an unlimited supply a state of things the most mischievous that could be imagined. Every change, to be wise and beneficial, ought to be gradual, and it was peculiarly important that it should be so in this case. Agriculture would be placed under an infinitely safer protection, even with a duty of 20s. the quarter, than it received at present. It was evident, that though this would admit the importation of grain, yet that importation could not, as had been stated, proceed to the extent which many persons supposed. This fact was corroborated by a well-known circumstance. Some time since, orders were sent from France to Dantzig, for the purchase of grain: the consequence was, that the price in the Baltic was immediately raised 25 per cent. This circumstance proved, that the northern market was not in a state to supply very exten sive demands. There were other

grounds on which Mr. Lewis contended, that it was necessary to revise the existing law. The cornbill of 1815 was framed avowedly with a reference to the then expenses of cultivation and state of rents. In these respects, the situation of the country was now much altered. The expense of cultivating a farm was diminished nearly one-third. In the manifestoes of the agriculturists themselves, the reduced price of labour was repeatedly stated. The price of horses, too, and of almost every thing necessary for farming, had fallen considerably; and rents had been every where lowered. This created a very essential difference. Then what was the result? It was this-that those who had invested capital when the prices were high, must be losers at this time; but that, if any persons now invested fresh capital in agricultural pursuits, they would stand at a charge one third less than they formerly could do. About one-third was the average declension in the price of corn. There was also a declension in the price of cattle and sheep, but not to so great an extent. The price of corn was not, therefore, so much diminished, when these circumstances were considered, as might be imagined at first sight; and a farmer, who now invested money in agriculture, was likely to reap as great a profit, as he gained prior to the high prices. He could not but persuade himself, that the time was not far distant, when it would be found necessary for us to retread our steps, and to adapt the protection to the altered state of expense. It was an opinion prevalent throughout the country, that excessive taxation

was the great reason of all the distress that was complained of. Now this system of protection acted as a tax on consumable commodities. It tended to increase the price to the consumer, to the amount of the difference between the sum for which the article might be bought, and that which was really paid for it; and this increased price did not go to supply any exigency of the state, but went to the landholder. This was the true state of the case; and he looked upon the tax as one of the very worst kind, since it weighed, above all others, on the prime necessaries of life, interfered with that on which all labour depended, and was not levied for the purposes of the state, or for the public protection, but to serve and assist a particular class of persons. He was one of that class, and, if the system were altered, he must of course bear a proportion of the loss; but he would be a gainer ultimately, by the beneficial change that would be operated on all classes of society. The protecting system was carried too far, and it would be found necessary to depart from it by degrees.

Mr. Curwen supported the proposed inquiry, not with any view of raising the present protecting price of wheat (for though he could have wished that it had been placed higher originally, he would not now disturb the actual arrangement), but because he hoped that investigation might lead to the removal of the burdens borne peculiarly by the land, and to divide them more equally between the agriculturist and fundholder. The poorrates, and other burdens peculiar to agriculture, constituted thirty