or any improper arts to keep back grain and to starve the market. It certainly was an unfortunate error to ascribe the prices too much either to the deficiency on the one hand, or to monopoly on the other. In the one case it gave a sanction to high price, and in the other to unfounded popular clamour. The past prices, however, I am fully convinced, ought not to be taken as a proof and index of what future prices may be. If the order of things by which the market has so long been regularly supplied be not disturbed by impolitic interference; if we are prudent to encourage importation, and firm to oppose all useless waste, there must in the course of the year be a gradual abatement of price. In fact, as soon as the effect of importation and economy begin to be felt, no regulation will be necessary to supply the market and to reduce the price. The most prejudiced will see, that the surest remedy for monopoly, if it has existed (and I do not believe it has existed to any considerable extent), is to increase the quantity and to diminish the consumption, to which highness of price must essentially contribute. If corn has been kept up, it will be sufficient to bring it out, to show both to the grower and consumer that we have the means of rendering the supply of the whole year adequate to the demand. A proper diminution of price will then ensue : for no man who truly estimates the difficulty of our real situation, and the means by which alone it can be relieved, would desire that in a time of scarcity the price should experience a temporary depression to what it would be in a time of plenty. This would be to remove the necessary and most effectual corrective of scarcity.

I trust, therefore, that one of our first measures will be, to go into a committee of the whole House, to fix the quantum of bounty to be allowed on importation. I should next propose, that a select committee be appointed to investigate the subject of the scarcity, and to this committee will be referred that part of the king's speech which refers to this point. I should propose likewise, that the committee shall from time to time recommend such measures as seem on the result of its inquiry fit to be adopted. I do not wish to anticipate any of their measures; but one suggests itself, which may be of great benefit as a regulation, particularly if sanctioned by example. This would be, to direct that all parochial relief, instead [VOL. XXXV.]

of being given in money, or wheaten bread, shall be given in bread partly made up of some wholesome substitutes. I believe that this practice has already made its way in some parts, and it appears to me that its extension would be attended with the most beneficial effects.

Thus much I have thought it necessary to state on the two leading points respecting the scarcity. On the question of peace or war, I shall only observe, that, as the papers on which the merits of the case must be decided are not yet before the House, it would be premature to enter at large into the discussion. There certainly is nothing in the address which pledges any opinion of the House on that point: this pledge it gives indeed, which no man I hope will shrink from, that if peace cannot be concluded on terms consistent with public faith, with the national honour and interests, we shall continue to support his majesty with that firmness, decision, and energy which this House has uniformly displayed. I cannot anticipate any difference of opinion on this head. The speech states what will no doubt appear distinctly from the communications that are about to be laid before parliament, that his majesty could not negotiate without separating his interests from those of his allies; and the importance of those alliances is justified by the desire of the enemy to dissolve them. If, then, the enemy advanced a pretension so unheard-of, as that his majesty, as the price of connexion with them, should break his faith to those allies with whom he was connected; if, as the price of being united in amity with his majesty, France wished to put an end to the union which subsisted between him and his allies, surely I ought not to presume that in such a preliminary to a negotiation, any member of this House will find conditions, which prove the sincerity of those who pretend to be the friends of general tranquillity, or conditions to which his majesty could have acceded. I trust, therefore, that as unanimity is desirable on every occasion, the House will without delay, and with a concurrence approaching to unanimity, proceed to declare its readiness to adopt such measures as alone are calculated to afford relief to the community. This is the only way to prove a sincere and enlightened regard to the interests and well-being of the poor. By showing a real and substantial regard to their happiness, we shall guard against the conse[2 M]

quences of the false and dangerous expectations with which, by factious persons, they have been deluded on the subject of the remedies of which their sufferings admit. Parliament cannot by any charm convert scarcity into plenty; but it is something to show that no time is lost in adopting every practicable means of alleviating the present distress, and ensuring the regular subsistence of the people. In the farther discussion let us proceed with caution, and examine with impartiality. Let us act with proper temper, firmness, and sobriety, that we may be able to discover where the cause of the evil really rests, and apply the remedy which will be truly serviceable.

Mr. Sheridan said:-Sir; if ever unanimity is peculiarly desirable, it must be on an occasion when the House is called upon to consider of an address to the throne on the affecting topic of the high price of provisions. In general, the minister has found the House as obedient, and of course as unanimous, as could with any decency be wished; but whatever may have been the docility of gentlemen in times past, the present is a period for unanimity. The particular object of the Speech evidently is, to draw the attention of the House to the state of the country in regard to the high price of provisions; and since it is manifest that his majesty is solicitous to favour any measures that may tend to lower the price, we are bound to approve of the address, so far as relates to the assurance it gives, that we will do all we can to alleviate the sufferings of the people. If the address were negatived, it would imply that the House refused to co-operate with his majesty in such measures as may most effectually tend to relieve the country. The suggestion respecting importation seems to be well-timed and politic. The third topic is that relating to the laws against forestallers and regraters. The language of the Speech, and of the minister to-night, on this subject, is wise and manly. But the right hon. gentleman contends, that the high price is neither caused by the taxes nor the war. I admit the question is one of great delicacy. I allow, that at a moment like the present, it is incumbent on us simply to look at the question of the high price of provisions, and to inquire how the evils which the country suffers can most effectually be cured. Yet we must not skim over matters. It is the duty of the House to find the people bread,

but it is also our duty to find them the truth. If war be not alone the cause of the present high price of provisions, it is certainly an aggravation of the sufferings of the people. The war, then, ought to be discontinued. Will it be denied, that, while there are 300,000 men employed in the navy and army, there is not, of ne cessity a considerable waste of provisions? Every man employed in such service causes the consumption of, perhaps, five times as much provisions as are used by the same number of individuals in time of peace. Will any man who knows that Malta was victualled from Leadenhall market doubt that the waste caused by the war has been immense? In the navy, the transport, and the victualling department, by the consumption of persons who hardly ever used any animal food at all, the waste is of necessity great during war. To which if we add the probable expenditure and waste in barracks for the cavalry, regulars, and volunteers, and in general throughout the domestic departments of our warlike system, no man will deny that war is a cause of dearness and scarcity. One word more. I say, God forbid that the war should not be the cause! for if it be not, the situation of the country is indeed deplorable. But, believing that the war is the great cause of our sufferings, I hope that the House will seriously turn its attention to peace. Upon the whole; I do hope, Sir, that the House will be unanimous on the present occasion.

Mr. Nicholls said, that the war had given rise to the famine in 1795, and also to the famine of 1800, and that no relief could be expected but from the conclusion of peace. When the war began, in 1793, the plan was suggested, of famishing France. Into the morality of such a measure he would not now inquire; but, it would appear, that the agents of government, in 1793 and 1794, had introduced too little corn from abroad; the consequence was, that there was a scarcity in the spring of 1795. That scarcity, which broke out in May in that year, was not the consequence of the bad harvest of the preceding year, but of the insufficient introduction of corn in the years 1793 and 1794. The agents, however, redoubled their activity in the subsequent part of the year 1795. But the introduction was still unequal to the demand; and the consequence was, that the minister signified to the corn-dealers, that he would abandon the trade if they would resume it.

The dealers did resume it, and they imported, in 1796, 1,086.000 quarters. What was then the conduct of the minister? The corn dealers say, he broke his faith with them; for, with 70,000 quarters, which his agents had bought, and 80,000 more, which he had on hand, he sunk the price of corn 56s. a quarter. This gave birth to the second famine. You knew of the famine of 1799 early enough; why did you not send for corn? The dealers would not trust the right hon. gentleman! They did not send while the Baltic was open. If they had, the famine would not have broken out so early. Something had been said of forestallers and monopolisers. It was the government of the country monopolising and forestalling the country. But the right hon. gen. tleman had said, that corn was cheap in 1797 and 1798. True, but we had an importation of 1,086,000 quarters in the year 1796.-With respect to the frugality which was recommended, we had about 3 or 400,000 soldiers and sailors in pay, who certainly consumed more than they did in those employments from which they had been taken by the war. The men under sir Ralph Abercrombie were fed with animal food and with wheaten bread: in the cottages which they inhabited before the war, their usual fare was, perhaps, neither animal food nor wheaten bread. If they were Irishmen, their food consisted of potatoes and butter-milk: if Scotchmen, they had lived, probably, on oatmeal and herrings. If we meant, therefore, to adopt a real system of frugality, we must reduce the number of our soldiers and sailors.-He came now to the measure recommended in the speech, of importation from abroad. Would not the power of going to a third market produce a more plentiful supply? Would it be no advantage to have the ports of Belgium open to us? Would not the conclusion of peace, by lessening the freight and insurance of ships, reduce the price of corn imported in them? Would it be nothing to increase the number of productive labourers? Could there be any doubt, after this, that the war augmented and aggravated the famine? If the war raised wheat to 361. a load, which in peace was not more than 18. then he would maintain that the war was the cause of the famine. Under such circumstances, it was the duty of the House to say to his majesty, when he recurred to them for advice, that peace ought to be made.-Another cause of the

scarcity was the raising such vast sums within the year, and the increase of paper money. Did not the latter cause increase the price of provisions in America and in France? Had it not increased the price here? When the Bank stopped payment, he had advised the limiting the issue of bank-rotes. Previously to that period, there was a natural limit, for every man had power of getting his note changed into gold at the Bank. As this natural limit was removed, he had recommended an artificial one, and that the number of notes should be limited. This recommendation, however, had been rejected. Mr. Nicholls next took a view of the increased price of gold, and of the exportation of gold for the purchase of corn and for the payment of subsidies. Would you pay for that corn, and those subsidies, in bills of exchange? No, for the exchange was 12 per cent against us. We were forced, therefore, to send gold. Would less be sent out this year for corn, if the war continued? Gentlemen should recollect, that, supposing there was a good crop of wheat in 1801, that would not make corn cheap in 1802. One good year alone did not make corn cheap. These were things which ought to be reflected upon seriously.

Mr. Grey said:-The chancellor of the exchequer, Sir, appears more solicitous than ordinary to recommend unanimity, in adopting the proposed address. In that wish my hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) has acquiesced; and sorry I am that, from such an opinion, I should feel myself obliged to dissent. Sorry am I, that, in a crisis like the present, unanimity should not reasonably be expected. But have the administration to whose hands our affairs are entrusted, a just claim to that unanimity? If we look for vigour on their part, we only discover weakness; if for wisdom, folly; if for foresight, rashness; if for concert, distraction; if for vigilance, inattention; if for energy, remissness; if for econumy, profusion. Shall we, then, the guardians of the public purse, signalize, by a show of unanimity, the mean and treacherous desertion of a trust that is supposed to be confided to honour and integrity. I cannot, therefore, agree, that an address like the present, under such alarming circumstances of the country, should be presented to the throne. What is about to be proposed, will, I fear, amount only to a palliative; I agree therefore with my hon. friend (sir F.

Burdett) that there is no effectual remedy but a peace. To the war, however, I cannot solely ascribe our present calamities; though I regard it as aggravating the distress which unfavourable seasons may have produced. After a brief recapitulation of the various miscarriages of the war, Mr. Grey continued thus :-Leaving these topics for future discussion, I shall say a few words upon the subject more immediately treated of in his majesty's speech. The right hon. gentleman lays the whole blame of the present scarcity on the seasons. The right hon. gentleman concludes that war can have no peculiar effect to enhance the price of provisions, because wheat was cheap in 1797. But it appears, that all kinds of corn was dearer during the course of the seven years war, than during the seven years which preceded it; and that, exclusive of the years of particular scarcity we have lately experienced, wheat has been 8s. per quarter higher during the five cheapest years of the present war, than it was between 1788 and 1793. War must necessarily tend, in various ways, to produce scarcity. Thousands are taken from laborious occupations, to consume what is produced by the labour of others. If each of them does not exactly eat five times as much as he did before, the effect of his change of life produces in bringing on a scarcity is as great as if he did; for, instead of living on vegetable diet, he must now be fed with beef and mutton; and it is well known, that it requires five times as much land to maintain a man who lives on animal food, as another who tastes nothing but vegetables.-The right hon. gentleman stated, that he was not sure but monopoly might have some share in creating the high price. I am of the same opinion; though I adhere steadily to the principles of Adam Smith, and maintain that, in general, all apprehension from unfair dealing is chimerical. But the evil arising from this source I ascribe solely to the war. In time of peace the demand is constant and regular, and speculation never will be extended beyond the wants of the community; but in time of war fleets are to be victualled, armies suddenly called together are to be fed, and expeditions are frequently fitted out: thus, a spirit of adventure is generated, and enterprising men may take advantage of the facility of raising money to speculate to an exceptionable degree. Mr. Grey then adverted to the corn laws. He

approved of the manner in which the subject was mentioned in his majesty's speech, and deprecated all precipitancy in altering the system which now prevails. The best way, he said, to procure an ample supply of corn was, to leave the commerce in that article completely unfettered, and to protect from all violence the grower and the dealer. The fixing of a maximum would prove the ruin of the country. The experiment was tried, in the reign of Edward 2nd, when it was productive of the most deplorable effects. In Scotland the attempt proved almost equally fatal. Against this measure, therefore, they had, to use a favourite expression," experience, and the evidence of facts." He approved, likewise, of that part of the speech which mentioned the temporary disturbances which had taken place in various parts of the country. Nothing could exceed the malignity and wickedness of those who took advantage of the difficulties in which we were involved, to stir up the people to acts of violence and outrage. It was said, that we could not enter upon a separate negotiation consistently with our engagements to our allies. With what allies? It would scarcely be said, that we were fettered by any engagements with the emperor of Russia, and the emperor of Germany was actually treating with the French republic. No principle of good faith prevented us from entering upon whatever species of negotiation we thought fit. He was glad to see, however, that a joint negotiation seemed to be considered desirable; but he could not help again regretting that the opportunity had been lost when we might have engaged in it under circumstances so much more favourable than the present. Besides that the address totally approved of the conduct of ministers, he could not vote for it, because the last paragraph seemed to give ministers (credit for an anxious desire for peace. That they would have no objection to it if the Bourbons were restored, and they had brought their bellum internecinum to a prosperous conclusion, he could easily conceive: but, after the manner in which they had thanked Providence for the failure of the last negotiation, that they were inclined to treat with the present government of France, no one could be so credulous as to believe. He would therefore move an amendment to the Address, by leaving out the last paragraph, beginning with "That, concurring with his majesty."