by noise and tumult, from adopting that which they conceived to be a wise measure. The times pressed hard on the grower of corn, and on every individual who was connected with the agriculture of the country. They had laid out their money for the general benefit, and it would be most unjust if they were not now supported. If the agricultural interest were suffered to decay, the ruin of the manufacturer, who would be unable to sell his goods in consequence, would soon follow. It was most important, in a national point of view, that the country should be rendered adequate to the supply of its population, instead of depending on foreign states, for an article of the first importance. So desirable a state of things could only be produced by affording a fair remuneration to the farmer; and all the provisions of the present Bill went, he contended, to procure for the manufacturers, and for the people in general, an abundant supply of bread at a permanently cheap rate. It was well said by the celebrated Swift, that he was the best statesman, who made three blades of grass grow where only one grew before; and certainly he who caused two blades of corn to grow, where ordinarily but one appeared, was worthy of great praise. It was to produce this effect that the Bill was brought forward; and such an object, he conceived, ought to be generally supported. It seemed to be imagined by many, that there was no fear of the farmer giving up the cultivation of grain on his land. But if the manufacturer was not properly remunerated for his skill and labour, would he continue to expend his capital? Certainly he would not. And, if the farmer was not protected, why should it be supposed that he would continue a losing trade?

Mr. Cartwright spoke in favour of going into the committee, which was the proper place for settling what the protecting price ought to be. He was extremely surprised that any gentleman should use the language he had heard in that House. It was said, by an hon. member, that it was intended, by this measure, to starve the people. Such assertions, he knew, were calculated to occasion a ferment in the public mind; but he would beg gentlemen to recollect, that when a ferment was once raised, it was not an easy matter to cool it. He again pressed upon the House the necessity of going into the committee, where they might deliberate on

the price with which it would be most proper to fill up the blanks. He trusted the House would permit no farther delay in the progress of this business. The measure was of the first importance, since it went to render England independent of foreign countries, with respect to a constant supply of grain. It was only intended to secure to the farmer such a fair remuneration for his labour, as would induce him to pursue the system of cultivation; and, so far from any blame being attached to ministers for the part they had taken on this occasion, he conceived they deserved the thanks of the country for their exertions.

Mr. St. Paul explained. He meant not to attribute any ill intention to the meinbers of that House. He had spoken merely of the probable effect of the Bill, without any improper reference to the motives of those who supported it.

General Gascoyne said, that as it seemed that no lower price would satisfy the supporters of the Bill than 80s. he should oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. The assertion of the right hon. gentleman, that the effect of the measure would be to lower the price of corn was so extraordinary, that he had at the time thought he must have misconceived it; but it had been explained by the surveyor-general of woods and forests, that in the next ten years the average price would be lower than it had been in the last ten years. As few of the members of the House might survive to disprove this assertion, the prophecy was a safe one. If the right hon. gentleman could persuade the people that the effect of the Bill would be to lower the price of corn, there would be little opposition to it from them; but, on the other hand, what the farmers complained of was the low price, so that they would be ill satisfied, unless the right hon. gentleman could shew them that it would raise the price. If the present measure were carried, a Bill might be next introduced on the part of the apothecaries, to oblige the people to take a certain quantity of physic for ten years, that they might have the less to take the ten years after. It was clear that the present effect of the Bill would be to raise the price, whatever the future effect might be. He moved as an amendment, that the House do resolve itself into the committee on the first day after the Easter recess.

Mr. Robinson said, he had been much misunderstood by the gallant general, but

the present was not the time to go again through the whole of his former speech. If the gallant general supposed that he was capable of holding different lines of argument to different classes of persons, he must have been but ill acquainted with his character.

Mr. Buller stated, that he had in his hand a petition, signed by 20,000 persons, from the place which he had the honour to represent, against any alteration in the present corn laws. He hoped the House would not act precipitately.

Lord Compton entered into a short state ment, to prove the fallacy of the arguments adduced by an hon. baronet (sir James Shaw) on a former night. He contended that the hon. baronet's data led to conclusions quite different from those he had drawn from them. He was sure the hon. baronet had no wish to mislead the House, but when statements were made, which would probably have a great effect on the public mind, gentlemen ought to take care that they were well founded. The noble lord then proceeded to argue in favour of the Bill, which he conceived absolutely necessary for the protection of the agricultural interest, and consequently for the benefit of the country in general.

Mr. Alderman C. Smith expressed himself in favour of the amendment. He had been informed, by several farmers, and he believed it to be the fact, that the measure would be of no service to them, though it would essentially benefit the great land

holders.

Mr. Protheroe supported the amendment. It would afford an opportunity for considering whether a medium price might not be taken, which would relieve the agiculturists, and yet meet the general feeling of the country. As to the observation of a ferment being not easy to be appeased, be would certainly say, that the appearance of precipitation was not the best way of appeasing it.

Sir W. W. Wynn contended, that it was absolutely necessary something should be done for the relief of the cultivators of the soil. He should certainly vote for the Bill going into a committee, although he would not pledge himself to the adoption of any particular protecting price. He was inclined to think that 75s. a quarter would be an eligible sum.

Mr. Marryatt observed, that when the business was first introduced, the fact of no petitions having been presented against it, was advanced as an argument to prove

that the popular feeling was changed, and that the measure was a very proper one. Since that time, however, petitions had poured in from every part of the country, expressive of the strongest hostility to the measure. Now, if the silence of the people in the first instance, was insisted on as a proof of the excellence of the measure, he thought their disapprobation, powerfully expressed as it had been, ought to have some weight in the opposite scale. He was very anxious that a little more time should be allowed for considering the question. They had been so constantly employed in debating, that no time had been left for thinking. By a little delay they would be enabled to come to a decision more consistent with their own dignity, and infinitely more satisfactory to the public. Impressed with these sentiments, he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Calcraft thought that precipitation was altogether unjustifiable under the present circumstances, when the ports were shut for three months. He must observe, that on former occasions the legislature was not so precipitate. In 1773, the bill which was introduced on the 1st of December was not out of the House till the month of April. In 1791, the bill was brought in the 16th of December, and was not passed till the 27th of May following. In 1804, the bill was brought in the 14th of May, and although it was late in the session, it was not passed until the 26th of July. He thought that if the Bill could be arrested in its course, only for a few short days, as proposed by the hon. general, some terms of conciliation might be fixed on. The feeling of the people on this subject was well known; and although the legislature were not to be overawed by the expression of this feeling, yet the voice of the people was deserving their most serious attention. He denied that the price of grain was falling in the way many gentlemen had stated; and, in proof of his position, he quoted the returns published in the Gazette, from which it appeared, that in January last corn was 59s. per quarter, and by the last return it was 67s. 3d.

Mr. William Smith declared, that he had often told his constituents that on a question of a local nature he should solicitously obey their instructions, but that on one affecting the whole community, while he listened to their opinion, he must be permitted to exercise his own judgment. In this case, however, although he had not

received any instructions from his constituents be had reason to believe that their opinion and his own coincided. On the best examination into which he had been able to enter of all the evidence on the table, he was convinced that 80s. was too high a protecting price. He should therefore vote for the postponement. -The House divided on general Gascoyne's motion: Yeas, 61; Noes, 187. A second division then took place, on the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair, when the numbers were: Yeas, 194; Noes 54. The House then went into the committee. The first and second resolutions were agreed to. On the resolution being read, which went to fix the price at which corn might be imported,

Mr. Robinson rose, to propose that the blank should be filled up, by inserting the sum of 80s. a quarter. This subject had already been so fully discussed in different stages of the measure, that he thought that the House would not now expect him to go over the argument again.

General Gascoyne said, that he should follow the example of the right hon. gentleman. In proposing an amendment to the motion, he thought it unnecessary to repeat the arguments that had already been advanced; but in order to conciliate the feelings of the people with the mea. sure proposed, he should move, as an amendment; that the blank should be filled up with the words 74s. instead of 80s.

Mr. Brooke supported the amendment. Mr. Courtenay supported the amendment. He had conversed with many members on this subject; and neither from conversations, nor from any thing that had fallen in that House, was he able to learn upon what grounds any member had fixed upon 80s. as the proper price. If it was not apparent why 80s. was the proper price for England, it was much less evident that it was the proper price for Ireland. If it was said that the English cultivators could not bring their corn into market under 80s. he believed that no Irish gentleman would say, that the Irish cultivators could not afford it cheaper. In the county that he was most connected with in England, it was generally supposed that corn could be afforded at a lower rate than SOS.; and from his knowledge of Ireland, he was sure that it could be grown there much cheaper. The Irish cultivators whom he had conversed with did not conceive such a price to be necessary. Unless members were satisfied that 80s, was a price abso

lutely necessary for the protection of our agriculturists, he could not see upon what grounds they could support it.

Mr. Western expressed his anxiety to go to the utmost possible extent, short of rendering the measure a nullity, in order to make it one of conciliation. He felt how important it was to convince the people of the fact, namely, that parliament were legislating as much for their interest as for that of any particular class of the community; but he would not consent to give up the efficacy of the Bill for the purpose of consulting a temporary feeling. His persuasion on the subject was founded, not on theory, but on experience, and that the experience of nearly a century. For 79 years, during which period the duty on the importation of foreign corn amounted almost to a prohibition, corn in this country was at a price lower than it had been at anterior, and than it was at subsequent periods. This was a fact on which the opponents of the measure ought to dwell. One hon. gentleman who had noticed it, attributed it to the poverty of the country at that time, but of this there was no proof. On the contrary, from 1710 (the period at which the system he had described was in full operation) down to 1764, not only did agriculture improve, but commerce and manufactures kept pace with it. Agriculture had, in fact, so much improved within that interval, that bread was cheaper than it had been at any anterior or subsequent periods, while our exports and imports had advanced from 10 to 25,000,OCOL. per annum. But the great cause which called for the interposition of the House upon this subject in order to encourage agriculture was the amount of our taxation, which so far exceeded that of France, that it was impossible our agriculture could go on, unless it was adequately protected. With a view to that protection the present measure was brought forward; and the effect of that measure would, he was confident, be in the end to lower the price of corn. Consequently it would serve to benefit the public, and therefore, he trusted, that no popular clamour, which must be temporary, would prevent the legislature from adopting a measure, the happy results of which must be permanent. For his part, he had no hesitation in stating, that the popular clamour should be withstood, and the more so because he was persuaded that it was mainly the effect of delusion. He estimated the opi

nion of the people as highly as any man; but he would never give up his own right of judgment, and he hoped that such was the resolution of every man who heard him. For if otherwise, they must give up even the government of the country. Not only the present administration, but any other, must give way if the will of the people were to be uncontrollable. He trusted, therefore, that the House would maintain its honour and character by persevering in the course which it deemed to be right; that it would not allow itself to be swayed by petitions, for the people might as well petition for the abolition of their liberties as for the abandonment of the measure under consideration, which involved their dearest interests. It was notorious that the people were too easily misled; that there were but too many always ready to misguide and inflame them: those, however, who were most forward to flatter the people, were, they might rest assured, very willing to deceive them. He knew that the people were deceived upon this subject, and therefore he would not capitulate to their wishes. But his right to decide for himself on all public questions, was the doctrine which he always avowed. When he became candidate for Essex, he told the electors that he went into parliament from and for them; but that he would not obey them, that he would be governed on all occasions by his own judgment and opinion, while he would never cease to consult their interest. That interest he consulted in this instance; for it was his firm conviction that the present measure, if carried with due efficacy, would tend most materially to their benefit. But the measure was egregiously misunderstood. When the people called out for cheap bread, they did not understand the meaning of their cry; for the true meaning of cheap bread was nothing else than cheap labour; and if so generally comprehended, he had no doubt that the general cry would be in favour of the measure before the committee.

PROCEEDINGS UPON COMPLAINT THAT THE APPROACHES TO THE HOUSE WERE OCCUPIED BY A MILITARY FORCE.] Mr. Baring was proceeding to animadvert on the observations of Mr. Western, when

Mr. Lambton rose, and stated, that on coming to the House in the discharge of his duty, he saw the avenues to it surrounded by the military force, which appeared to him so contrary to the princi

ples of the constitution, that he should move that the House do immediately adjourn.

Lord Castlereagh said, that if the hon. gentleman had bestowed a little more consideration upon his motion, he would have been aware that it was not in a committee that it ought to be brought forward. The hon. gentleman should also have taken the pains of informing himself, whether this military force which he had seen was or was not under the command of a civil magistrate. [Hear, hear!] He might have also informed himself what was the cause of the civil magistrate having called in the aid of the military, and whether it was not in consequence of the House being surrounded by a numerous and tumultuous mob, who had been brought into the neighbourhood of the House of Commons for the purpose of menacing the members of that House. If this was the true state of the case, that magistrate had done his duty who had brought the military into the neighbourhood of the House. He hoped that the hon. gentleman would feel that it was highly proper to defend the civil power of the country; and what higher duty had that civil power to perform, than to defend the Parliament of the country from the menaces of a mob? If the members of that House were to be intimidated in the discharge of their public duties by the clamour and menaces of a mob, they would soon cease to be the representatives of the people, and would be degenerated and degraded to the condition of being themselves a part of thut mob. He hoped, before the hon. member gave the countenance of his name to a complaint against the employment of the military, that he would be satisfied they had been called out in an unconstitutional manner, and not for the due support of the civil power, and the protection of the independence of Parliament.

Mr. Lambton said, in reply to the noble lord, that in coming to perform his duty in the House, he found himself menaced by a military force, and considering this highly unconstitutional, he thought some explanation was due to Parliament.

Lord Castlereagh said, that the force was called out in aid of the civil magistrate, and not with a view to menace the members of arliament.

Mr. W. Fitzgerald stated, that when he came down to attend his duty in the House, he saw no military force, but he