amendment, that the measure to be adopted should be temporary, and intimated his intention of proposing 76s. per quarter, as the price beyond which importation might be permitted.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he felt it impossible to give a silent vote on a question which, it was agreed on all hands, was one of universal interest-which was complicated with so many other important topics relating to the policy, the trade, and the poor-laws of the country-and upon which such a diversity of opinions was entertained.

First principles had been alluded to; but first principles, as well as other principles, must depend upon positive circumstances and relative situations, for the mode in which they were to be applied. If this was an untaxed countryif we had no poor-rates-if a perfect freedom of trade existed in every branch of commerce-the arguments of honourable gentlemen would be irresistible.

In adverting to the principle of foreign supply, and to the consequences likely to result from it to our native agriculture, the right honourable gentleman had put the supposition, "were the arable land of England to produce one-fifth less than it now produced." Would not France, he asked, in that case, do what Ireland had done? Would not her agriculture receive a stimulus from our demand? Many honourable gentlemen could remember when Ireland was an importing country; yet now, from the encouragement she received from England, and from that alone, she had become a considerable exporting one. An honourable gentleman had said, why not try the experiment, and put other countries in the same condition, with respect to ourselves, that Ireland was in? He would tell the honourable gentleman why that experiment would not succeed. Ireland was under our control, while other countries were not. Besides, did not Ireland receive our manufactures in return? and were we quite sure that other countries would

do the same? France would unquestionably increase her exports, if we afforded her sufficient encouragement, by pouring our capital into the hands of her agriculturists. The object of the present measure was to support the agriculture of the country in the state to which it had risen by a course of progressive improvement, and to make it as independent of foreign assistance as was compatible with our actual situation. The necessity of relief was admitted; and he believed that, tardy as it now came, a great loss of productive capital and industry had already been incurred. He could tell the Committee, that large imports from France had recently arrived on the southern coast of England; that the markets were so stocked, that the English farmer could not get a bidding for his grain at any price. He had seen the invoices of those cargoes; and, after all the charges of conveyance were added, the corn so imported could be afforded to be sold at 50s.

It had been said, that the price of provisions had no influence upon the wages of the labourer. This was a novel theory, and one which scarcely deserved refutation: for nothing could be more obvious, than that, in the longrun, the one must affect the other. What would be the effect, if the agriculture of the country were allowed to fall back; as had been recommended by one honourable member? The capital was so amalgamated and incorporated with the general improvement of land, in draining, embanking, and other ways, that it was impossible for the agricul turist to withdraw it, in the same way as might be done in commercial speculations. The capital thus invested, would, in this case, be so much national wealth thrown away.

Nothing could be more fallacious than the notion, that cheapness in the price of provisions was always a benefit. He had it from good authority, that the labourers in Scotland consumed less corn now, than they did when the article

Thus, in France cheapEither state of things high wages tended to

was much dearer. Cheapness without a demand for labour was a symptom of distress: cheapness always prevailed, where enterprize was at a stand. ness, in England capital, prevailed. was injurious to the labourer; for make him dissolute, and uncertain wages to expose him to misery. The great object to be attained was steady prices, and an active demand for labour.

An honourable gentleman had indulged in some observations upon the increased degree of luxury in which our farmers now lived, and lamented that they sometimes preferred a bottle of wine to a mug of ale. Now, for his part, he thought the change extremely natural, and considered it to be the necessary consequence of improved skill and enlarged profits. Had not the same effects taken place in the commercial world? Did not our merchants now think it desirable to exchange the narrow lanes of the city, for the squares at the west end of the town? And, instead of dining at one or two o'clock, with their clerks, as their forefathers did, were they not now to be seen sitting down to a table, profuse in its variety of dishes, at six or seven? But he did not complain that it was so. He honoured the industry, and gloried in the success, which had occasioned it; and though the comparison might appear invidious, he had been driven into it by the equally invidious comparison made by the honourable member.

From the state of the evidence which had been given before the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, it was, in his opinion, clear, that less than 80s. as a protecting price would not remunerate the farmer; but that at that price he would be remunerated, if properly protected. Nor did he at all anticipate the dangers which seemed to be apprehended, that because 80s. were fixed as the protecting price, corn could never be at a less rate; seeing that • Mr. Alexander Baring.

the experience of the last century abundantly proved, that the market price of corn was frequently, nay, almost always, below the protecting price. In behalf of the agriculturist-in behalf of the manufacturer-in behalf of the public creditor-in behalf of the whole community, he earnestly recommended the adoption of his right honourable friend's proposition.

Mr. Baring's amendment was negatived without a division. After which, the original motion was agreed to by 209 against 65, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded thereupon.

STATE OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
March 2.

Lord Archibald Hamilton moved, "That a Committee be appointed to examine and state the total amount of outstanding demands upon the Bank of England, and of the funds for discharging the same; and also, to examine into, and state their opinions upon, the effect produced upon the currency and commercial relations of the United Kingdom, by the different acts passed since the year 1797, for continuing the restriction on payments in cash by the Bank of England, and to report their opinion how far, and under what limitations, it may be expedient to continue the same."

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that whatever opinions he had formerly entertained and advocated, with regard to the theory of money, and the depreciation of our currency, those opinions he still retained. He had no hesitation in saying, that the currency of the country was depreciated. At the same time, if he had seen sufficient reason for changing that opinion, he should have acknowledged that change, in an honest and open manner. As to the practical question before the House, it appeared to be simply this: whether the restriction upon cash payments by the Bank of England should be continued fifteen months longer?—a propo

sition which he could not by any means consider unreasonable. It would be recollected that, in 1811, it was not thought practicable to put an end to the restriction within less than two years. He could not therefore consider the present measure as improper, especially after the declaration which the House had heard from his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When a responsible minister of the Crown stated his confident expectation, that within the period specified in the bill, it would not be inconvenient for the Bank to resume its payments in cash, he could not but consider that statement entitled to attention, and that it served to render the proposed Committee altogether unnecessary. Indeed, he should oppose the appointment of such a Committee; believing, as he did, that its appointment would serve to impede the object for which that statement encouraged us to hope.

For himself, bearing this statement in mind, and taking into consideration the improved prospects of the country, and the reduced price of bullion, he did not see why the removal of the restriction upon our natural currency should not take place, even sooner than some honourable gentlemen seemed to contemplate. With regard to a vote which he had given in 1811,* for the resumption of cash payments in two years, he would not disguise the satisfaction he now felt, that that vote had been overruled by the House; because, if it had not, it would have been impossible for this country to have made those great efforts, which had happily produced such glorious results. Nor was there any inconsistency between his past and his present conduct; for no human foresight could, by any possibility, have anticipated those results. Had the struggle been of longer continuance, greater and more serious difficulties must have followed, from a protraction of the restriction to an indefinite period, than he was willing to state.