amount to protection-and that what was nominally for the benefit of the landed interest, would not, in the alterations of prices in different years, be found to be consistent with their real advantage. It also appeared that, from the same causes, the having no restriction after the price was raised to 80s., might, in some cases, be found injurious. It was also shewn, that the grower of corn in England was entitled to protection, in proportion to the difficulties of his cultivation, as compared with other countries; but, that any thing beyond would be found disadvantageous to the other branches of the community, if a great alteration took place in the prices in different years.

Upon this view of the case, the report proceeded to suggest to Parliament the propriety of a free trade, with only such restrictions as would protect the home grower, in proportion to the difficulties under which he cultivated. In this opinion, the majority of the Committee concurred. It also met the sanction of his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that of a noble lord* who took an active part in the Committee of that and of the succeeding year; but they also concurred in thinking, that, at that period of the year it was too late to make any alteration. The following year a Committee was appointed with the same objects as the former; and the result was, a recommendation to mitigate the principle of the bill of 1815, in the points to which he had adverted; but his right honourable friend and others thought, that the alteration ought not to be extended beyond the general feeling of the country at the time. It seemed, at that period, to be considered, that not only were the duties not too high, but not high enough. He felt that a similar reason existed at the present day, for not carrying the alteration beyond the feelings of the interests concerned. At the same time, that he

• Lord Althorp.

could not concur in the motion of his honourable friend, he felt obliged to him for the picture which he had drawn of the evils which might take place from the present system, by a great alteration in prices. He agreed that such might be the result of the present system, under particular circumstances; but he did not think there was any immediate fear of such a state of things.

The remedy which should be applied, ought to be applied gradually, and according to the changes in the prices. He believed we had seen the worst of the low prices; for, with the deterioration in cultivation and the increase of consumption, he thought there was a fair prospect of that growth of prices, which would materially serve the agriculturists, without being a disadvantage to the other portions of the community. Under such circumstances, he put it to the honourable mover, whether the present was the exact time for such a measure as that which he had submitted. He thought a system of law which would continue the monopoly, would not only not be a permanent advantage to the agriculturists, but would considerably increase the burdens of the manufacturers. He would not now go farther into the question. He thought the law as it now stood was, perhaps, as perfect as it could be made at the present moment, consistently with the feelings of those interests which were concerned. We should wait for the re-action of one of the causes of the low prices, and then, by a modification of the law, we might have a regular and moderate importation, which would be the best regulator of prices that could be adopted. Fully impressed as he was with the justness of the principles of his honourable friend, he nevertheless entreated him for the present, to withdraw his motion.

The House divided: For the motion, 25. Against it, 78.

MR. MABERLY'S MOTION FOR THE REMISSION OF

TAXATION.

February 28.

Mr. Maberly, pursuant to notice, submitted his Resolutions to the House for the remission of taxation to the amount of seven millions. After the project had been opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ricardo, and Mr. Baring; and defended by Captain Maberly and Mr. Tierney,

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that after the able manner in which the subject had been discussed by his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and two honourable members opposite, he should occupy the attention of the House only for a very short time; and he was the more inclined to be brief in his observations now, as the subject would more properly be brought into discussion on Monday; when his right honourable friend had signified his intention of fully explaining the views of his Majesty's Government, with regard to that most important part of our financial system, the Sinking Fund. He would not complain of it; but the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken, had introduced the subject rather prematurely, in his observations on the speech of the honourable member for Taunton-a speech which he had heard with the greatest satisfaction, exhibiting, as it did, the most statesman-like views, with regard to the importance of retaining a surplus revenue, and employing it towards the liquidation of the public debt. Coming, as that opinion did, from an individual of the honourable gentleman's experience, it would have more weight in the country, and would tend more to the maintenance of public credit, than if it had proceeded from almost any other member of the House.

He owned he was much surprised at what had just

fallen from the right honourable gentleman, on the subject of the sinking fund; for the right honourable gentleman's observations were as applicable against the creation of a sinking fund at any period, as they were against the maintenance of such a fund at present. When he recollected how strenuous a supporter the right honourable gentleman had been of the sinking fund, as established in 1786, he was at a loss to understand why he had so completely changed his opinion on the subject. The right honourable gentleman had urged, as one objection to the application of the surplus of five millions as a sinking fund, that it was taking that sum from the people, which would fructify to the national advantage in their pockets, much more than in the reduction of the debt. Never was there objection more trite; nor any which had been so frequently urged against the sinking fund. But it was general in its nature. It was applicable, not only to the present times and the present circumstances, but to all times and to all circumstances, when it was proposed so to apply surplus revenue. He sincerely regretted the departure from the original principles of the sinking fund, and wished that those principles had been inviolably adhered to.

Much as he admired the general reasonings and the great talent of the honourable member for Portarlington,* he did not think he had been very happy in the illustration he had made of a man of a thousand a year paying off his debt of 10,000l. by a fund of 6007. a year, and being, at the end of a certain period, in a worse situation than he was at the commencement, by contracting a fresh debt. The honourable member did not state what sort of emergency it was which induced the contracting of the fresh debt, when half the first was discharged. If the honourable gentleman could show that the emergency was such as

might arise to a nation-the defence of its honour, for instance, or the protection of its liberties-then the illustration was unhappy, for, in such a case, the nation, as well as the individual, would borrow, whether any of the former debt had been paid or not; and it was natural to suppose that both would be in a better condition to do so, when they had taken means previously to pay off part of the former incumbrance.

The right honourable gentleman who spoke last complained, that the surplus of five millions had been declared necessary in 1819; but before the right honourable gentleman sat down he had admitted, and he hailed the admission, that some surplus was necessary. Now, upon an income of fifty millions, if it was admitted that we should have some surplus for an emergency, it was immaterial whether it was called a sinking fund or not; and, considering the amount of our debt, he was prepared to contend, that five millions were not too much. Of this he was persuaded, that even if the sinking fund were abolished, it would be expedient to have a surplus of not much less than five millions, to meet any occasional fluctuations that might take place in the amount of the revenue, and to provide against unexpected contingencies. He would ask those who were rejoicing at the present improvement of the revenue, whether, if the country were to be visited with a bad harvest, which would necessarily be followed by a great change in the price of all the articles of comfortable subsistence, there would not be a considerable diminution in the revenue of excise? In that case, if the estimated surplus were less than five millions, might not serious inconvenience and embarrassment be the result?

To the right honourable gentleman's question, why a surplus of five millions should be preserved? he had thus given one answer. But he would go further. Whether