lefs it could be called relief that they had intimated to him, that he had their permiffion to return by the first of the Company's fhips, and refume his ftation in India. It was very natural for a man, at the age of feventy-two, to wish to remain in his native country, and await that perfonal infirmity which had fince actually befallen him. Palfied, therefore, as Mr Fowke was, and not having any reasonable expectation of a long remainder of life, it was not to be wondered at, that in his 74th year, he fhould not be willing to undertake another voyage to India, in order to begin the world again and upon thefe grounds, the petitioner, Mr. Burke faid, came to the Houfe for fome relief under fuch circumftances of diftrefs and misfortune in the first inftance, and ultimately of oppreffion and injuftice. Mr. Burke added, that he knew not how the House could regularly interfere and take cognizance of the grievance alledged in the petition, but if they had the power, fure he was, that it was their bounden duty to protect every perfon employed under the Government of the country, whether by direct commiffion, or through the medium of the appointment of the EaftIndia Company. Mr. Burke, in conclufion, declared, that he had no authority to pledge himself for the facts which he had mentioned as the grounds of the petition; the Company might poffibly have good reafons to alledge in juftification of their conduct; and therefore, in order that the truth of the cafe might be ascertained, and fubftantial juftice be done to all parties, after the petition had been brought up and read, he thould move that it be referred to a Committee, to enquire and report to the House.

The petition was prefented and read. The allegations of it fupported the facts ftated by Mr. Burke, and in particular laid great stress on the hardship the petitioner was obliged to undergo, by means of having been compelled to disclose his ftraitened circumftances upon oath, if the Company did not intend to grant him the relief of the ufual annuity in cafes of fimilar diftress in other fervants of the Company, who had returned home upon the faith of the Company's folemn refolution and declaration to the effect stated.

1

Mr. Pitt (Member for Gloucester) propofed deferring any Mr. Pitt. investigation of the petition, until the Chairman of the EaftIndia Company fhould be present in his place.

Mr. Burke answered, that the appointment of a Commit- Mr.Burke tee to enquire into the merits, did not tend at all to prejudice

the Directors, and that he had already fignified the nature of

the petition to several of the Directors who were Members
of that House.

Mr. Alderman Le Mefurier (the only Director of the Mr L
Eaft-India Company prefent) observed, that not having had Mefur
VOL. XXIX.

I

the

Mr.Burke

the honour of being in the direction at the time, when the cafe of the petitioner was under the confideration of the Directors, he could only speak upon the fubject from the information of others, who were in the Direction at the period in queftion; but from what he had heard, he conceived that his brother Directors could affign the most justifiable reasons for their conduct. He thought it right, however, to ftate to the House, that Mr. Fowke was not in a fituation of preffing diftrefs; if he had not a fortune himfelf, his fon was in an affuent fituation, and he understood that, much to his credit, he made his father a very liberal allowance. He mentioned this merely to let the Houte feel that the cafe of Mr. Fowke was not fo far pitiable as that he ought to be confidered as a perfon in a fituation of pinching penury.The Alderman added, that moft undoubtedly what he had stated, did not alter the juftice of the cafe. With regard to that, the Houfe would neceffarily proceed as the circumstances to be stated in the report of the Committee fhould render proper; and as it appeared to be the general inclination of the House, that the petition fhould be referred to the confideration of a Committee, he had not, for one, the fmallest objection. The Alderman, however, observed, that the Court of Directors were at prefent full of bufinefs; and the House would have their table covered with frivolous petitions, fhould they discover a difpofition to encourage the prefentation of fuch as might be offered by the complaining part of the Company's fervants.

Mr. Burke remarked, that the honourable gentleman had taken a curious ground of defence for the Court of Directors, and very well accounted for unaccountable things, and affigned the best of all poffible reafons for faying nothing, because he had nothing to fay. What had been the honourable gentleman's argument against entertaining petitions complaining of grievances? but that the countenancing one ftatement of a grievance would occafion the introduction of others. Could there be a better argument to encourage the House of Commons to countenance petitions of that nature, than the broadly ftating, that if they liftened to one complaint of a grievance, they would be called on to liften to others that would not otherwise have been brought forward? In arguing that Mr. Fowke, though poor himself, had a wealthy fon, who made him a liberal provifion, the honourable Member had completely opened the policy of the Eaft-India Company and their Board of Directors. If brothers were affectionate, parents tender, children pious, and friends kind, the EaftIndia Company were to do nothing; they looked upon themfelves as abfolved from all pledge of their public faith, and free from every engagement. After putting this in the

strongest

frongeft point of view, Mr. Burke alluded to the cafe of Mr. Larkin, and faid fomething refpecting that gentleman, which we did not correctly understand.

Mr. Alderman Le Mefurier declared, that he saw no rea- Mr. Ald. fon whatever to have rendered it neceffary for the right ho- Le Mefunourable gentleman to answer his arguments in terms fo ex- rier. tremely fevere. He was not ready, on the part of the Directors, if a man had a good brother, a tender parent, or a dutiful fon, to affign that as a reason for denying him juftice, nor had he faid any thing which amounted to fuch an argument. With regard to his private character, he trufted it was as little liable to impeachment on the score of want of benevolence, humanity, or philanthropy, as that of the right honourable gentleman, or any other honourable gentleman in that House; and he could not recollect a fyllable of his former fpeech which warranted such an attack as the right honourable gentleman had thought proper to make against

him.

The Speaker put the question, which was agreed to.

Mr. Burke then named his Committee, and, before he fat Mr. Burke down, took an opportunity of declaring that he never had lefs thought of impeaching the private character of the honourable gentleman, than in what he had faid before; indeed he had no intention of criminating any one of the Direc

tors.

The ufual orders for giving the cuftomary powers to the Committee were made.

The House having refolved itself into a Committee on the re-commitment of the Corn bill, the Speaker left the chair, and Mr. Bramfton took his feat at the table. The Committee then proceeded to debate the feveral claufes, and Mr. Ryder, Mr. Harrison, and other gentlemen, proposed different amendments.

The first point debated was, whether the exportation price fhould be 46s. or 48s.; in the difcuffion of which, Mr. Ryder, Lord Sheffield, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Powys, and many different Members, took part. At length, the Committee called for a divifion, but it was afterwards agreed to take it on the difcuffion of the table of prices.

Each clause occafioned a difcuffion, and a divifion took place upon that which confifcates the fhip or veffel, on board of which a certain quantity of grain or meal fhall be found, when not exportable.

Inftead of this claufe, Mr. Alderman Curtis proposed a penalty of treble the value of the corn, and a penalty upon the tonnage, at the rate of 100l. for 100 tons measurement of the fhip or veffel in which fuch corn or meal fhould be found.

Lord Lord Sheffield argued against the original claufe, and having Sheffield. contended that it would operate as a very great hardship up

Mr.

on the fhip owners, faid, that he would divide the Committee in favour of the amendment propofed by the honourable Alderman.

Sir Peter Burrell spoke against the original claufe. Mr. Ryder, Mr. Pitt, the Attorney General, and Mr. Rofe, were against the amendment.

At length, the Committee divided, and negatived the amendment, there being for the original clause,

Ayes, 64; Noes, 39. Majority 25.

After the divifion, the Committee proceeded, until they came to the table regulating the prices of grain, for opening and shutting the ports; and that part of the table being read, which enacts, "That the ports fhall be opened for the im"portation of foreign corn, when the price of British corn "fhall amount to 48s. or upwards,"

Mr. Powys objected to the admiffion of foreign wheat, Powys. until the produce of this country fhould be at the average price of 52s. inftead of 48s. The present bill was founded unfortunately upon the corn bill of 1773, which repealed the corn laws that had exifted for upwards of a century before, and under which old laws the trade had flourished; but fince the repeal of them by the act of 1773, the principle of which was followed in the present bill, that trade had been destroyed, and we were now become a corn-importing, inftead of a corn-exporting country.

Mr.

Mr. Ryder remarked, that it would be incompetent for the Ryder. honourable gentleman to move his amendment in the present Committee; the only mode which could, at that time, receive an adoption, must be a motion to negative the whole table.

Mr.

Mr. Powys contended, that it was the fame thing, as the Powys. Committee perfectly understood his object. He moved to have the table omitted.

Mr. Mr. Ryder afcribed the increase of importation, alluded to Ryder. by the honourable gentleman, to the increase of wealth, of population, of luxury, of horfes, and of diftilleries. He contended, that the price by which Brifh corn was propofed, by the table, to be protected, would not operate to the difcouragement of agriculture. He obferved, that all the productions of the earth had increafed in price in proportion with that of wheat, and that a farther increase would not operate fubftantially to the benefit of the landholder, fince fuch increase muft ultimately tend to raife the wages of manufacturers and labourers, which would be feverely felt by the landholder, and operate injurioufly to our commerce, by

raifing

raifing the price of our manufactures in foreign markets.The bill was calculated to prevent an artificial scarcity, and to keep the price of wheat at a price neither too low for the grower, nor too high for the consumer.

Lord Carysfort was of opinion that the cheapeft poffible mode of procuring corn for the confumption of the country, muft arife from making the importation and exportation free; fuch, however, was not the object of the prefent bill; its object was to fecure, for the people, corn, not at the loweft price, but at fuch a moderate price as might insure the growth of the country to be adequate to its confumption; the whole of which object was hazarded by fixing a lower price for the importation of corn than fifty-two fhillings; and lefs could not fail to difcourage the tillage of this country, and render us dependant on other countries for fupport.

Lord

Carysfort.

Mr. Pelham contended, that the principal object of the Mr. House ought to be the fupplying the country with corn of Pelham. its own growth, which could not be effected, as England was fituated, unless the growing of corn were forced by bounties, or by an admiffion of exports when the prices fhould prove higher than proposed by the bill.

Mr. Pulteney conceived that a free trade would prove too Mr. great a venture, fince the Houfe ought not to risk the exift- Pulteney. ence of the people upon any theory, however plaufible. He thought that if the farmers were fuffered to be crushed, the poor would also be crushed; and therefore he should clofe with the propofal of the honourable gentleman to increase the price.

Mr. Baftard afferted, that forty-eight fhillings a quarter Mr. was not more than a faving price to the farmer, and as, by Baftard. the present bill, they never could expect to obtain more, if it should pafs, though they might poffibly get confiderably lefs, he was convinced that it would deftroy the growing of corn, and that farmers would turn their tillage into pasture, to prevent which circumftance to the country, he should give his vote for negativing the table.

Mr. Powys begged leave to trouble the Committee with a Mr. calculation which he had received from feveral quarters, and Powys. which would prove, beyond all argument, that a farmer could not gain upon 48s. the quarter; fince, admitting that he gave only twenty fhillings rent for an acre, his tillage and other expences would amount to fix pounds three fhillings and five pence; to repay which, calculating that an acre would produce three quarters, at the highest price in the bill, viz. 48s. the farmer would have to defray these expences of seven pounds three fhillings and five pence out of no more than feven pounds four fhillings.

Lord