sure was most undesirable. He had formed and expressed this opinion, without reference to those whom it might please or displease, and in the discharge of what he conceived to be his duty to the House. The grant was refused by a majority of 42 against 28. Any proposition of this kind ought to come from a man who knows the worth of woman in her moral nature, where all her excellency lies. Coming from the quarter from which it did come, the earl of Lincoln and Sir John C. Hobhouse would have been justified in treating it as something too ridiculous even for a joke. This Mr. Grantley Berkeley thought fit, in the course of the year, to publish a book, which he

same

called a novel. A periodical publication criticised it severely, but, (with the exception of some personal allusions, which, though not unprovoked, it would have been better to have omitted,) not one whit more severely than its absence of all mind and morality deserved. The honourable Mr. Grantley Berkeley called to his aid a strong-shouldered comrade, and the two magnanimous men committed a brutal assault on the publisher of the obnoxious periodical. A jury avenged this violation of law; and public opinion went even farther: but what is to be thought of this man taking under his protecsion the women of Great Britain?

THER

HE complaints of the agricultural class of the community, which, for several years, had annually been brought before parliament, still continued, accompanied by speculation, as various as ever, regarding the causes which had produced their distresses, and the expedients by which they might be removed. The more enthusiastic apostles of free trade held, that the removal of all duties on the importation of grain would benefit the grower no less than the consumer; others thought that no relief could be found, except in departing from the existing system of the currency; a third class called for reduction in those taxes which were supposed to press peculiarly on the agriculturists; and a fourth maintained that no permanent assistance was to be found, but in a general reduction of the rents which the farmers paid. The government took up the question very early in the session, and suspended, at least, the discussion of the various questions connected with these topics, by proposing the appointment

of a select committee. The motion was made by Lord John Russell on the 8th of February, on the ground, that whenever any great branch of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of parliament to give a favour able consideration to the complaints of those engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to devise a remedy; and the proposition, his Lordship added, arose more from this feeling, than from any hope that the distress of the agriculturists could be removed by legislative interference. Those who complained of this distress, and those of them more particularly who were directly engaged in agricultural pursuits, uniformly specified the low price of wheat as the main cause of it. Now, although it was true that the price of wheat at present was extremely low, there had not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The returns since 1828, when the last corn-law was passed, shewed that wheat had fallen from 60s. 5d., the average in 1828, to 39s. 4.d, the

price in 1835, being a reduction of 36 per cent.; that barley, on the contrary, had fallen from 33s. 10d. to 29s. 11d., being only a fall of 9 per cent.; and that oats had fallen from 22s. 6d. to 22s., being a fall of 24 per cent., the difference between the fall that had occurred in the price of wheat and oats being 334 per cent. The committee, therefore, would have to consider not only the low price of wheat, but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce. They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already produced, and likely to be produced by the new system of poor-laws. In some instances the amount of poor-rates paid had already been reduced by one-third, and was expected to be diminished to one-half. In one district of the county of Bedford the reduction of rates had been so great, that, in the quarter ending last December, they had been only half as much as they had been in the corresponding quarter of the preceding year; they had fallen from 2,500l. to 1,200l. An agricultural committee, therefore, ought to take that subject into their consideration, and to see whether a great amelioration had not taken place in the rural districts, owing to the passing of that act. Another point which would have to come under the consideration of the committee, was the existing state of the law as to county-rates. There were charges made upon those rates which were not suffi ciently examined; they had been glanced at in the report made by the committee upon county-rates; but there might still be more effectual checks devised on that expenditure, of which it was difficult to

see the object, and of which it was hard to tell where the efficient control ought to be placed. Government, however, did not think it would be expedient that the committee should enter upon the question of the corn-laws. The arguments relating to it were arguments on principles rather than on facts, and would be more usefully discussed before the whole House. One remedy, however, for agricultural distress had sometimes been proposed, in regard to which, his lordship said, he thought it necessary to express a still stronger opinion, he meant an alteration of the currency. Although he might think it not a desirable thing in itself to restrict the inquiries of the committee, yet he was bound to state, that no recommendation or opinion would induce the government to adopt or countenance any proposal for tampering with the currency, a measure which they thought would neither be consistent with the public faith, nor conducive to the public interest. They were determined to adhere to the solemn resolution of the House on 24th April, 1833, "that any alteration in the monetary system of the country, which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, would be highly inexpedient and dangerous." He moved that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of the agriculture of the country, and into the extent and causes of the distress which existed in some of its important branches.

The marquess of Chandos approved of the appointment of the committee, provided it were fairly constituted, and not unduly restricted in its inquiries. He did not think it right, whatever might be his own opinion, even to prevent

those who might believe that they could make out a case on the question of the currency, from being heard. Whatever might be the causes of the agricultural distress, the time had now come when they must be investigated. The numerous agricultural associations which had been recently formed in various parts of the country shewed that the farmers, feeling themselves involved in difficulties under which they could no longer go on, had taken up a determination to have justice done them. Even if it should turn out that parliament was unable to give relief, the farmers would still have the satisfaction of knowing that their case had been fairly inquired into Mr. Roebuck, a radical member for Bath, thought it would turn out, if the committee properly defined what was meant by the terms agricultural distress," that there was less reason for complaint than seemed to be assumed. The agricultural interest consisted of three classes, the labourers, by far the most important, the farmers, and the landlords. He believed that the condition of the agricultural labourers was better now than it had been twenty years ago. Farming, again, was the application of capital to the cultivation of land; and if the committee should ascertain that capital so employed was not less profitable than when employed in any other business, what was meant by "agricultural distress" as applied to the farmers? Last came the landlords, the least numerous class, and a non-productive class. They, no doubt, were in distress, but only in consequence of their own conduct; not by any act of the law, which specially favoured them, but through their own proceedings.

Their distress arose out of habits and times different from the present, when, unhappily for the country, the landlords enjoyed a monopoly of supply, we being cooped up within the four seas. The habits of expense then contracted and continued under different circumstances, together with the large charges upon their estates, had ruined the landlords. Now that we were no longer confined within the four seas, or at war with the whole world-now that the great body of the people were better off than formerly,but when the expensive habits of the landowners were destroying them, those persons had no right to call for compensation for losses and difficulties which were purely the effect of their own proceedings, and in which the community was not interested. He hoped, therefore, to whatever conclusion the committee might come, that they would settle whether and how far it referred to the agricultural labourers, the farmers, and the landlords. Mr. Attwood, on the other hand, a radical member for Birmingham, contended, that the landlords had already been plundered by the currency act of 1819, against which he violently inveighed, and in which he found the cause of all the agricultural distress which existed. If rents were to be reduced, why should not likewise dividends from the funds be reduced? The landlords had already lost 30 per cent by the alteration in the currency; what would be their condition, if they were called to give up other 50 per cent. as a diminution of rent? Under the present standard of value, one half of the tenantry were already ruined, and the other half were rapidly travelling the

same road. When they had reached that destination, the landlords would not be long behind them, and their estates would soon be in the possession of mortgagees. The industrious classes had been deceived and defrauded, and their capital taken from them, by a currency which was neither sound nor just, and which, if left in its present state, would not fail to bring another deluge of ruin on the mercantile and manufacturing interests. He therefore moved that it should be a special instruction to the committee, "particularly to inquire into the effect which the bill of 1819, commonly called Peel's bill, had produced in causing the present distress of agriculture." Without this the committee would be a mere delusion: they would summon before them a host of witnesses, to prove that there was nothing rotten in the state of agriculture, and that any little evils which existed might be remedied by taking off the tax on shepherds' dogs, and making some alteration in the county

rates.

Sir Robert Peel agreed, that, whenever there was a strong and general feeling among a particular class admitted to be distressed, an inquiry into their condition was desirable, and might be advantageous. Under such circumstances, those who doubted the utility of the investigation were nevertheless bound to consent to it, and thereby obtain the moral advantage to be gained by the inquiry, whatever might be the result. At the same time, he did not concur in the expectation that the appointment of the committee would end in any practical advantage. His belief was, that when the committee sent in their report, probably at the

close of the session, the result would prove to be not very different from that of 1833-namely, a strong opinion on the part of the committee, and as firm a conviction on the part of the House, that legislative interference would not afford the means of relief or prosperity to the agriculturists; and as to the currency, if he thought that the committee was appointed with a view to an alteration of the standard of value, he would not consent to the proposition. If they were about to undertake the task of ascertaining the effect produced upon agriculture by the alteration of the currency in 1819, and of investigating the various causes of depression to which that interest had been exposed, they were about to enter upon an inquiry which, pursued in the usual manner, would necessarily end in disappointment. If they took evidence regarding widely different parts of the country, with a view of assign ing to each particular depression its peculiar cause, they would engage in a task which could not be accomplished by any committee. To select particular circumstances of distress and depression from particular parts of the country would be fruitless, and would not prove satisfactory to the rest. It was true, that if a committee was to be appointed, it was wise not to restrict its powers closely within the limits of a particular subject. But, so far as the interests of agriculture were concerned, they would be best promoted by the committee addressing itself to practical remedies, by which it might obtain the means of administering, if not extensive relief, at least material alleviation to the agriculturists. Something might be done in regard to the land-tax;