every shape, and particularly when they could be mixed up with the Carolinea.

Of the Quercus Anglica, or old England's Oak-bark, little enough; and the basilicons of all kinds quite out of use with him. Nothing Royal for little Whiglet's sick stomach. Instead of this, a compound of the dregs of the populus Londinensis, and a particular caution to apply the diaculum vulgare instead of Court-plaster, and to keep the parts affected* as much as possible in hot water.

We have not time nor stomach to get through the whole drug-shop. These are very obvious ingredients. Besides our peep is but a conjectural one. We shall one day, per haps, know more about it, In the mean time we will offer Doctor Radical a prescription from the Crown Circuit Companion, or the Old Bailey Sessions Papers. "Take of conscience a scruple or two at least; and if this won't do, a certain ass. stringent, the linum silvestre usitatissimum, or hemp-seed liniment." It is in desperate cases wonderfully efficacious, and has been so from the spawn of Wat the Tiler, to Butcher Ings and his companions.

THE

AGRICULTURAL QUESTION.

IN discussing "the most im"the most important question," which can possibly engage public notice; we may fairly be supposed, from our habits and connections, to be the natural advocates of the country, or landed interest; yet we will not, nor are we disposed to suffer our predispositions to carry us into arguments upon any other ground than that of

Query, if not dis-affected.

+ If the old proverb be true, that “ murder will out."

Sir John Silvester, physician to the City of London, has recorded the efficacy of this medicine in various instances, particularly when taken with Dr. John Ketch-up's new Drop.

nationality. The question with us is, not that agriculture should be supported by the losses of any other branch of the community, but that it should be placed in that fair and equitable and prosperous state, in the which, if it be not placed, all other interests will lose the chief source of their invigoration.

The variety of points in which this subject may be viewed, and the many various positions in which it has already been placed, have created great confusion, and much misconception; we therefore find ourselves in the office of umpires upon evidence already received, than in the possibility of being able to discover any new feature in the case.

The question before the Select Committee was, to consider the various petitions presented to the House of Commons, complaining of the depressed state of Agriculture, with a view to some practical relief; and the mode of that relief, as suggested by the "Secretary to Agricultural Distress," was, "a fixed duty upon the importation of all Agricultural produce." The principle upon which the remedy was demanded, was, "that the manufactures of the country were so protected by prohibitory duties."

We are greatly inclined to the belief, that much of the indifference which was ministerially shewn, to the important matter of the petitions, arose from an appearance of combination on the part of the Agricultural petitioners:-combination always creates opposition; and unfortunately, the effect of the national debt is, to create in the House of Commons, too preponderating and too immediate an influence, in opposition to the landed interests. Under such circumstances, and against so powerful an antagonist, it might have been more discreet and judicious, more effectual, and for the Committee, upon one petition, more conciliatory, to have moved, founded upon, and accompanied by

facts and data, and emanating from some great land-owner, not being a member of the House of Commons; -whereas the Paper, which is subjoined in the Appendix (page xxx.), is bottomed upon the most fallacious argument, however it may appear to be borne out by matters of fact; -when, with this Paper is coupled the evidence of the person who drew up the precious document, the failure of the objects in view cannot be wondered at.

The Report contains no answer to the prayer of the petitioners; and proposes no remedy for the consideration of the House; but as a document conveying much important information, and opening a fair field for useful and dispassionate discussion; the report is most valuable. In practical importance, it is, however, far below the standard, of the one in 1814 on the subject of the Corn Laws, and indeed, both together should be taken with their evidence, in order to form the best opinion upon the bearings of the question: the evidence of 1814, as to the nature, extent, and influence of foreign importation upon the home markets, is particularly valuable. It appears to us to be included in the following statement of Samuel Scott, Esq., a member of the Committee. It is as follows:"Supposing the growth of wheat in this Kingdom to be below an average crop, do you think any importation that could be reckoned upon from the Baltic, would prevent the price of wheat in the Home market

from rising above 80s. a quarter ?—

"Answ. I think not.

:

"Do you think that importation from other quarters, aiding that from the Baltic, would produce that effect?

"Answ. Unless under circumstances of a general abundance in the countries not habitually exporting corn, I think not.

"Supposing the price of wheat in England to be 635, a quarter, and a general abundance in Europe, do you think that a considerable importation could take place into this country?-Answ. I do.

"Do you think it could at any price below 63s. supposing the duty not to counteract such importation?

"Answ. It is difficult to state what price would be sufficiently low, to prevent an im

portation from those parts that annually have a considerable quantity to spare. "Under the circumstances above stated, would not such importation tend materially to depress the Home Market, even though the prices were as low as 63s. per quarter? -Answ. Undoubtedly.

do

you

"You have stated, that no importation that could be reckoned upon, would prevent the price of corn in the Home Market, from rising above 80s. in the event of our own growth being below an average crop; now tecting price against importation being think that, in the event of the proraised from 63s. to 80s., the quantity of corn imported would be diminished one single bushel, in the event of our own growth being any thing below an average crop?any thing "Ans. Certainly not.

"On the other hand, were a large importation to take place, such as you have stated under circumstances may happen, when the price is at or below 63s., would not the effect be, to discourage the growth of wheat in this Kingdom?

"Answ. Certainly it world."

The evidence of Mr. Charles Frederic Hennings, a native of Elbing, locally acquainted with the districts of Poland, from which corn is sent to the ports of the Baltic for exportation, and himself a corn-factor of considerable experience in London, is in substance the same as that of Mr. Scott, ou this important part of the trade in Foreign corn.

It appears that Mr. Scott and his father had been for the period of fifty years engaged most extensively, both in the native and foreign corn trade. His evidence therefore being that of a person of great experience, and enabled to judge of both interests, is particnlarly valuable, and no doubt had great influence in effecting the measure of the existing corn laws.

[Anxious to relieve the terror which the agricultural interest appears to feel at the very name of foreign corn; and to have it at an early stage of our observations understood-" That foreign supply is not indefinite," (or as a farmer might say, that we can see to the bottom of their sacks ;) and that such supply is limited in its extent, by the ground in actual cultivation: we

have been drawn from the straight forward plan of our argument, which we now resume.]

In all matters of doubtful result, and of uncertainty, when recourse can be had to figures,, much of error and misconception vanishes at their touch. We therefore propose to precede our arguments by reference to the best work which has ever appeared, upon every subject connected with our financial situation; and the resources of the empire. This reference is necessary, that the magnitude and preponder ating rank of the landed interest may be at once seen and the better appreciated. Our readers need

hardly be told, that we allude to the laborious volume of P. Colquhoun, LL.D. of which he who can detect the few errors, must indeed be more than an ordinarily acute man. Could the critic compile such another work?

Mr. Colquhoun, in the chapter

on the new property in the British empire," thus writes of agriculture:

and Ireland, is presumed to give employ "The agricultural labour of Great Britain ment and to afford support to 5,500,000 of the population, and the annual produce of this labour is estimated at £216,817,624.

Great Britain and Ireland, including the "In the year 1811 the population of army and navy, has been estimated in this work at 17,096,803 persons; but as the army, navy, marines, and registered seamen have been principally fed from the produce of the United Kingdom, and as the increased population since the census for Great Bri tain was made, cannot be estimated at less

than nearly one million of increase for the year in which the work quoted from was United Kingdom on the 1st May 1814, (the published) the whole may be taken at eighteen millions, depending principally upon the soil of the British Islands for sub

sistence."

Assuming these data, therefore the proportions of agricultural produce for the food of man and animals, and for other purposes as hereinafter stated, may admit of the following arrangement.

.£51,387,748

13,840,293

27,117,376

for 10,000,000 cattle

...... .....