thing had been said of the effect that might be produced elsewhere, by such discussions as the present. He cared not what effect might be produced: on such an occasion he considered it to be the bounden duty of every member to state his impressions, and leave those impressions to produce the effect that belonged to them in this country and in Europe. V. THE CORN LAWS. 23d February, 1815. (Vol. II. p. 229.) THE House having resolved itself into a Committee to resume the debate of the preceding evening, on the state of the Corn Laws, and after Sir John Newport, Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Calcraft, and several other members had spoken, Mr. HORNER addressed the House, and said: - He should not pay much attention to the calculations on either side. From the manner in which the question was opened, he had no hesitation in saying, that the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Robinson) had manifested a more statesman-like mind than any of those by whom his propositions were supported; for that right honourable gentleman had fully recognised the great principles which, according to the highest authorities, ought to regulate our commercial policy, admitting that a case of necessity should be made out for any deviation from those principles, and that the House had only to balance between difficulties - between the nature of the necessity and the deference that was due to the great radical principle of a free trade. That this principle was entitled to respect, was not, he maintained, the opinion of what were denomi nated mere modern speculatists, but of the soundest thinkers upon commercial policy, aided by the experience of practical men, who most naturally deemed the success of agriculture as the main basis of commercial prosperity. Those, then, who concurred with such thinkers, could not be regarded as theorists only, nor were they fairly liable to the attempts made to depreciate their judgment. He was indeed surprised at these attempts, as if the denomination of "political economists" could detract from the authority of any gentleman who opposed the measure before the committee. But who were they who resorted to nicknames upon this occasion? Why, the very men who admitted that the knowledge of political economy required deep reading, and, that what ap peared paradoxes to superficial observers were, upon further investigation, proved to be just and rational views. Those, indeed, who used the nickname alluded to, endeavoured themselves, by the legerdemain of figures, and a complication of details, to confer a rational character upon a proposition which had all the complexion of a paradox, which, in fact, appeared utterly irreconcilable with reason. But in reviewing these extravagances, he was glad to find that the report of the committee of that House was not disfigured by such observations as appeared in the report of the other House of Parliament; for, in the latter, he was really astonished to find these statements: first, that the price of provisions had truly nothing to do with the price of labour; and, secondly, that the amount of rents had no material influence upon the charges of agriculture. But there was another theory, still more extraordinary, from the advocates of the proposition before the committee, and which, he believed, had never been broached since the days of Cromwell; namely, that the land did not really belong to the proprietors, but to the community. Nay, in addition to these strange doctrines, an honourable friend of his (Mr. Preston), who was among those by whom theorists had been decried, had that day sent him the tract of the Marquis de Mirabeau upon political economy, which he had alluded to in his speech, calculating, no doubt, that it would serve to produce an impression upon his mind: but his honourable friend was under a serious mistake as to the nature of that celebrated writer's opinion; for the Marquis de Mirabeau belonged to that class of economists, who maintained quite an opposite doctrine to that of the honourable gentleman; and also that all the taxes necessary to the support of the state should be drawn directly from the land. But as to political economy generally, upon what ground could gentlemen pretend to depreciate its character, unless they meant to deprecate the exercise of reasoning upon the subject under the consideration of the committee! However, in consistency with their system of depreciation as to political economy, they had thought proper to treat with levity the treatise of Dr. Adam Smith, which was, in fact, but a collec - tion or digest of maxims, which, instead of being any innovation, had long been held sacred among the best writers this country had ever known. But it was also well known, that the opinions contained in the work of Dr. Adam Smith were, after full examination, recommended by the sanction of our most distinguished statesmen, by Mr. Pitt, for instance, and also by Mr. Burke, who traced the history of Dr. Smith's opinions, demonstrating that those opinions, instead of being, as some alleged, mere plagiarisms from those of the French economists, were the original growth of our own country, from which they had been borrowed by the economists of France. The justice, however, of Dr. Smith's great principles was recognised by the statesman-like view of the right honourable opener of this question, who had not given the weight of his authority to the untenable proposition, that because the manufacturers enjoyed some protecting duties, the agriculturists were entitled to the measure he proposed, which was a kind of argumentum ad hominem. Still less did the right honourable gentleman manifest any disposition to support the assertion, that the agriculturists suffered by the protecting duties granted to the manufacturers; and in what instance, he would ask, could the British agriculturists be conceived so to suffer? From what country could they obtain any article of manufacture necessary for their consumption, at a cheaper rate than they could purchase it at home, supposing trade perfectly free, and that protecting duties, as to manufactures, were totally done away? Could coarse woollen cloths, for instance, be purchased cheaper any where than in England? or could any other article be had on better terms elsewhere? The only article, indeed, which could be supposed cheaper elsewhere was linen, which was the manufacture of Ireland. For himself, however, he had no difficulty in declaring, that all the protecting duties (as they were called) at present in existence in this country, were but so many clogs and impediments to our commercial prosperity; and that, whatever might be the gain, which must be partial and comparatively insignificant, derived probably to the most insignificant in trade, the effect of the whole system must be, that the produce of our natural wealth was considerably diminished. But, reverting to the main question, and bearing in mind the grounds stated by the right honourable opener, he maintained that no necessity was made out for any departure from the main principles of trade, to the justice of which that right honourable gentleman bore testimony. If the proposition before the committee were merely a temporary measure, to relieve any temporary pressure upon the farmers, he confessed that he should have felt much more difficulty in opposing it; but, as a measure of permanent legislation, he could not hesitate to enter his protest against it. Sympathy for the suffering of individuals would naturally dispose one to plead for the former; but every consideration of sound national policy, which he was able to appreciate, urged him to resist the latter. But the object of granting temporary relief to individual distress had been disclaimed by the advocates for the proposition before the committee, who thought proper to rest their pretensions upon considerations of permanent policy; and here he was at issue with them. He was aware of the distress of the agriculturists under existing circumstances, and he had all due feeling for their situation; but, then, he recollected the cause of that situation, which recollection was necessary to a due estimate of the policy of this measure. The present distress of the agriculturists was owing to the great stimulus which the circumstances of the war had given to agriculture; which stimulus was now withdrawn. The operation of that stimulus, which offered a strong proof of the prosperity and health of our commercial system, encouraged the farmers to offer exorbitant rents for land, and also to lay out large sums upon that land; they must naturally suffer by the cessation of such a stimulus. They had, in fact, been too sanguine in their speculations, and hence the losses of which they now complained. But the farmers were not the only persons who suffered from too extensive speculations. Such sufferings, also, too frequently happened in every branch of trade, and did it therefore follow that an application should be made to |