drawn into the rain which, undeservedly, rectly after the receipt of a note, he fully ex That previous to the eighth day of February, this deponent applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence, which was refused, until this deponent had joined the said ship, and had removed her down to Long Reach; that this deponent in pursuance of those directions removed the said ship from Chatham to Long Reach ; and after that was done, viz. on saturday the 12th day of the said month, this deponent wrote Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord to the Admiralty to apply for leave of absence Cochrane, one of the above named Defendants, for a fortnight, for the purpose of lodging a spemaketh oath and saith, that the several farts and cification for a patent, as had been previously circumstances stated in his affidavit, sworn on communicated by this deponent to their Lordthe 11th day of March last, before Mr. Graham, ships; that leave of absence was accordingly the Magistrate, are true. And this deponent granted for 14 days, commencing on the 14th of further saith, that, in addition to the several the said month; that this deponent was engaged facts and circumstances stated in his said afli- in London, expecting the said specification till davit, he deposeth as follows, that is to say, the 28th of the said month, when the said speThat he had not, directly or indirectly, any cification was completed, and this deponent left concern whatever in the formation, or any town about one o'clock on the morning of the knowledge of the existence of an inten- 1st of March, and arrived at Chatham about daytion to form the plot charged in the Indictment, light on the same morning; that on the 8th or 9th or any other scheme or design for affecting the of the same month of March, this deponent republic funds. That the sale of the pretended ceived an intimation that placards were posted in Omnium, on the 21st day of February, was several of the streets, stating that a pretended made in pursuance of orders given to his broker, Col. de Bourg had gone to this deponent's house at the time of the purchase thereof, on or about in Green-street; that at the time this deponent the 14th of that month, to sell the same when-received this intimation he was on board the said ever a profit of one per cent. could be realized; | ship at Long Reach, and in consequence went and that those directions were given, and the to Admiral Surridge, the Port Admiral at Chaale thereof took place without any knowledge, tham, to obtain leave of absence, which was information, hint, or surmise, on the part of this granted; previous to the receipt of the leave deponent, of any concern or attempt whatever, forwarded by the Lords Commissioners of the to alter the price of the funds; and the said sale Admiralty, this deponent arrived in London, on on the 21st. took place entirely without this the 10th of that month, to the best of his belief; deponent's knowledge-that when this depo- and that after his arrival, he himself, conscious of nent returned home from Mr. King's manufac-his own innocence, and fearing no consequences tory, on the 21st of February, which he did di- from a development of his own conduct, and de De Berenger to his house, nor did he ever breakfast or dine with this deponent therein, on any occasion whatsoever; and further this deponent saith, that he hath been informed and verily believes that the Jury who tried the said indictment, and the Counsel for the defence, were so completely exhausted and worn out by extreme fatigue, owing to the Court having con tinued the trial without intermission for many sustaining herself, without refreshment and repose, that justice could not be done to this deponent. siring only to rescue his character from errone- public character; that he never asked the said ous impressions, made by misrepresentations in the public prints, without any communication whatever with any other person, and without any assistance, on the impulse of the moment, prepared the before-mentioned affidavit, which he swore before Mr. Graham the Magistrate, on the 11th; that at the time he swore such affidavit, he had not seen or heard the contents of the Report published by the Committee of the Stock Exchange, except partial extracts in the News-hours beyond that time which nature is capable of papers; that when the deponent understood that the prosecution was to be instituted against him, he wrote to Admiral Fleming, in whose service Isaac Davis, formerly this deponent's servant, then was, under cover to Admiral Bickerton, at Portsmouth, and that Admiral Bickerton returned the letter, saying that Admiral Fleming had sailed for Gibraltar; that this deponent sent his servants Thomas Dewman, Elizabeth Rush, and Mary Turpen, on the trial of his indictment, to prove that an Officer came to this deponent's house on the morning of the said 21st of February, and to prove the dress that he came in ; but that the said Thomas Dew-amined, were likewise attempted to be read, man only was called ; and, as this deponent has been informed, he was not interrogated as to the dress in which the said Officer came to his The next affidavit proposed to be read was one from Thomas Dewman.-Lord Ellenborough remarked that this affidavit could not be read, inasmuch as the person who had made it had been examined on the trial, and might have been then questioned upon the subject, if the Counsel of the defendants had thought proper. Several other affidavits from witnesses who had attended the trial, but who had not been ex but Lord Ellenborough said there was no instance on record in which such affidavits were permitted to be read.-Lord Cochhouse; and this deponent further says, that had tain a new trial, so that these witnesses rane said his object was, if possible, to ob the said witnesses been examined according to the directions of this deponent, and who were in attendance on the Court for that express purpose, they would, as he verily believes, have removed every unfavourable conclusion respecting this deponent's conduct, drawn from the supposed dress in which the said De Berenger appeared before this deponent on the 21st of February, and on which circumstances much stress was laid in the charge to the Jury, the said De Berenger's dress being exactly as stated in this deponent's former affidavit herein-before mentioned; and this deponent solemnly and positively denies, that he ever saw the said De Berenger in a scarlet uniform decorated by medals, or other insignia; and he had not the least sus picion of the said De Berenger being engaged in any plot respecting the funds, but merely believed he wished, for the reasons stated in deponent's former affidavit, to go on board this deponent's ship, with a view to obtain some military employment in America; and this deponent declined complying with his request to send him on board his ship without permission, or an order from the Lords of the Admiralty: and this deponent further saith, that he was in no degree intimate with the said Berenger; that he had no personal knowledge of his private or might be examined, as they would have been, but for an error in his Counsel's. brief, over which he had not looked, from a perfect consciousness of his own innocence.- -Sir Simon Le Blanc observed, it was quite without precedent to have the affidavit of a witness read, who had been at the trial, but who had not been called. An affidavit of the Hon. W. E. Cochrane, brother of Lord Cochrane, was then read, for the purpose of shewing the existence of his illness in the month of February last, and the consequent anxiety with which Lord Cochrane went home to his house from Snow-hill, when he heard that a stranger, whose name he could not decipher from his note, awaited his arrival. "The Honourable William Erskine Cochrane, Major in the 15th Regiment of Dragoons, now residing in Portman-square, in the County of Mid-lesex, on his oath saith, that he was seized with a violent and alarming illness on the 1st of January, 1814, at Cambo, in the south of France; and that this Deponent remained in a state of dangerous illness until the 18th of the following month; that early in February last he wrote to his brother, Lord Cochrane, to acquaint his Lordship with this Deponent's situation, as De by the community in general as consumers. Upon this I must pause; for here I find, that all are producers and all consumers; and the question may therefore be put into a more simple form, recollecting that our present enquiry is, as to the cause of high prices generally; and here, Mr. Cobbett, ponent had then very little hope of recovery, and telling him that he had received a notification that he would be ordered to England, where he should proceed, if ever able to undertake the journey. And this Deponent further saith, that the annexed certificate was given to him for the purpose of being laid officially before a Board of Medical Officers at St. Jean de Luz, by the Sur-I must assert, in opposition to what you geon of this Deponent's regiment, and is in the said Surgeon's hand writing.” have said in your Letter to the Southampton Petitioners, that taxes cannot cause a ge This was accompanied by a confirmation neral rise in prices; nor will you, I believe, from the Surgeon, who attended this gal-persist in it, when you review the subject. lant Officer, and a statement of the particulars of the disease by which he was at tacked. CORN LAWS. Mr. Huskisson, whose opinions you say are the same as yours on this subject, puts it in a shape that admits of a cooler argument, when he states, that in 1792, all our Government establishments required but MR. COBRETT. Having been from 16 millions a year; and that a peace home some time past, on my return I establishment, at present, will probably be found your Register, containing your Let-between 50 and 60 millions. Now, Sir, ter to the People of Southampton, with supposing the taxes to have increased in those that have been since published, con- precisely the same proportion, has the taining further remarks on the Corn Bili. quartern loaf done the same? According In the last number you say, that instead of to your statement, on the peace which tersending abuse in anonymous letters, they minated in 1792, the loaf was at 7d. 5-10; should have answered you; but you and, during 1803-4, it averaged 9d.; and could scarcely expect that. You have so now, I suppose, is nearly 1s. But, Sir, if completely exposed theit gross ignorance, the taxes were added to the original cost exhibited them in so contemptible a light, of the article, must not the rise have been that their rage must be almost boundless. much greater? We will take the differBut, Mr. Cobbett, is there not a danger ence between the taxes of 1792, and the of falling into error ourselves, when the present period, at 60 millions. Is it poserrors of others are of so gross a nature assible, Mr. Cobbett, that the producers of to make it an easy task to expose them? the taxed articles could reimburse themWe are apt to go on with confidence, in a selves by increasing the prices of the arti hasty careless manner, and, satisfied with cles, until they obtained 60 millions more having done what we proposed, send the than their former prices? The thing is article to the press, without that minute impossible: if we consider the effect of revision which a cooler state of mind would taxation, by itself, on prices, we must supinduce us to give. These remarks are drawn pose, that in 1792, there was 20 millions from me, by a belief, that you-you, Sir, of currency in England. Had the curare wrong in your supposition; that the rency not increased, how would it have increase in the price of the quartern loaf is been possible for the prices of last year to attributable to the weight of taxes which the have been paid? Had we only the same landlord and farmer has to pay. You 20 millions of currency, that sum would certainly do couple another cause with have been equal to all the sales made in taxation; namely, the alteration in the the country, and the price of every parcurrency; but you have not attempted to ticular article would have held a due proshow what share taxes have had; and what portion. Food, clothing, furniture, labelongs to the alteration in the currency.bour; every thing must have continued the When two causes are assigned for one effect, it is desirable that each should be traced in its operation; this you have attempted to do, with taxes. In page 740 of your Register, you enumerate many of the taxes paid by the land-owner and farmer, and contend, that those taxes must be paid by the consumer of the produce of the land. You also enumerate many other taxes paid same in price. For, could any one article have risen, without others being lowered, if we imagine quantities to continue the same? Suppose the seller of food to ask a higher price, whatever excuse he might have for the alteration, a consumer would say, “Mr. Farmer, I have only so much money; if you persist in your demand, I certainly must pay you as far as my means will go but I shall have less money to expend in a tax, will not let for the sum it did forother things, and those other things must merly. The farmer will, at last, pay a consequently fall in price. I shall have past of his rent to Government, and the less money to pay to my draper, tailor, remainder to the owner of the land. The shoemaker, to my brewer, and all those same takes place with the owners of who furnish me with the comforts of life. houses: if a house be liable to the payNow, Mr. Farmer, these good people are ment of a tax, it will bring less rent. This all your customers, as well as I am, and will appear very evident if we imagine one in proportion to the increase in your charge house to be offered for 1007. a year, which to me, you lessen their means of purchasing is liable to the payment of 50%. in taxes; from you. They of course will eat less, and another equally good is offered for and you will be at last obliged to come down 150l. per year, but liable to no tax. Is it to the means which the consumer has of not evident, I say, that the owner is the paying you for your produce. If you can- loser? Precisely the same thing takes not afford to pay your rent and taxes, with-place with all property that yields a reveout raising your prices, I am sorry for you;nue to the proprietor; and how can the for you really cannot get more money from owners of property indemnify themselves us than we have; if you get more from by high prices, if it were possible, which it one, you will have less from another; so is not, from the limited ability of the other that at last it will be the same." I will parts of the community, it would re-act not say, that such reasoning would con-upon themselves. If the farmer and land vince the farmer; but I will assert, that proprietor charged higher for their goods, such would be the effect of any demand for they in their turn would be charged higher higher prices, if the quantities of goods and for every thing they had to purchase; so money continued the same. The farmer, that at last they would have precisely the however, has the tax to pay; that is im- same quantity of clothing, furniture, and perative upon him; there is no bargain in other means of enjoyment which they that business; the Government will be would have had, without any rise in price paid, or they will seize. What is to be having taken place; the only difference done? The farmer cannot obtain higher being, that there must be more money in.. prices, because money, which measures circulation; for without that a general rise the price of every thing, has not in- in prices is impossible, supposing the varicreased; he must, therefore, pay a ous articles brought to market in the same smaller rent to the owner of the farm. quantities as before. Although I think Disguise it as we may, it is the owner-the that what has been said, is sufficient to person in the receipt of the revenue which shew, that taxes, without an increase in is left, after paying for the labour expend-the money of the country, cannot raise ed! It is the proprictor of property that prices, yet I will venture to risk the taking really pays all the taxes; and every tax up of a little more room in your admirable laid on the cultivator of the soil, or on the REGISTER, by shewing the fallacy of the produce, is deducted at last from the rent. proof produced by you at page 717. You This, certainly, does not take place where suppose a man cultivating his own farm of leases are held; because here is a positive 100 acres, which yields him 300 quarters engagement to pay a stipulated sum, which of wheat, at 47. per quarter, making an inmay not be altered in consequence of a come from his farm of 12007. per year; heavy tax; when the farmer, having to but his land is subject to a tax of 3. per pay all the rent which the land will fairly acre, so that he pays to the Government afford, after supporting himself and family, 37. out of his 12007. You go on to supand in addition, a tax to the Government pose, that if the tax were taken off, that he not contemplated when he made his lease, could afford to sell at 37. per quarter, inhe may be ruined for observe, if by in- stead of 47. It is true he could afford it, creased exertion he should produce more and he could now afford it at 37. if Le food, this only makes it cheaper, and will were to make 6007. serve him instead of not enable him to pay the additional de- 9007. per year. But why should he sell mand with greater ease.-We know well, his corn at less after the tax was taken off that if the farmer be ruined under such than he did before? Do not owners of land circumstances, the owner of the property always take as high a price for the prowill also be injured; his land will be ex-duce as it will fetch in the market? Has hausted; and, being liable to the payment of a land proprietor, such as Mr. Coke, any and as taxes are increased, Government thought of selling his wheat, or letting his land, at one half their present price, because he could afford to live at the rate of 900/ a year, as well as the owner and cultivator you have imagined? Does not the owner, in fact, take, in the shape of rent, all, or nearly all, that the farmer has left, after supporting himself and paying the various expences attending cultivation, taxes, &c. and does not the farmer always take as high a price as he can get for his food? You imagined that wheat was at 4. a quarter instead of 37. on account of the tax: I should say, that the quantity of currency in the country had brought things generally to certain prices, and among other things, wheat, to the price of 41. a quarter. Well, supposing the same money to continue in the country, would the farmer take 1. a quarter less because he could afford it ?-is it likely? Do you expect that he would do it voluntarily; and why should he be compelled by the consumer. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the farmer were to lower his price, the rest of the community would have one-fourth more money to expend on other things, which must, of course, make other articles rise: and thus the fall in the price of food would cause other things to be dear, unless, indeed, we could imagine that a greater part of the money of the people remained unemployed, and thus less comic into the market. This would be equal to taking a part of the currency out of circulation, which is certainly a sufficient cuse for lowering the price. But again, the farmer and owner would have only the same money to lay out he had before the tax was taken off, and the rest of the people would have the 3 per acre, which formerly passed through the hands of the Government. Why should this be? Why should not the former charge as high prices as he did before, if others do not alter their prices? and how,vided into two branches: the first, is the how can prices be altered, if there be the same goods and the same quantity of money as before, seeing that in the nature of things one is the measure of the other. Increase the quantity of goods, whether food, clothing, or any other, or all saleable things, and let the money remain the same in quantity, and each particular quantity must fall in price, as the whole of the goods is equal to the whole of the money. When a tax is laid on, the Government receives a part of the revenue arising from property (after supporting the labourer), increase in the quantity, which naturally results from successful commerce. The second, from swelling up our currency by Threadneedle-street, and other substitutes for metallic money. With respect to the former cause, it has happened to us, in common with other nations that have had a commerce, flourishing and highly profitable to those engaged in it; an accumulation of the precious metals has always been the consequence of prosperous trading, unless where they have been banished by similar means to those which we have used to send |