g34 parliament. Com bill. Feb. itpt^ 



were made on the subject. The proposition was agreed to» 



March 30. Mr Powys, moved that an humble addrels be 

 presented to liis majesty, that he would be graciously 

 pleased to lay before the House of Commons, copies of all 

 such information as had been received by the committee 

 of privy council, relative to the present state of agricul- 

 ture in Great Britain and Ireland, h'c. His reason, he 

 said, for requiring this information, was to ascertain whe- 

 ther or not the afsertion of some people was well founded, 

 that neither Great Britain, nor Europe, produced a suttici- 

 ent quantity of grain for the consumption of its inhabitants. 



Mr Ryder objected, because some inconvenience would 

 arise from divulging the price of corn at certain periods. 

 He farther said, that the privy council had *iot gone into 

 the state of agriculture in this country and Ireland. The 

 motion was negatived j and Ivlr Powys gave notice that 

 he iliould make a similar motion on Friday, April i. 



April I. Mr Powys having accordingly made a simi- 

 lar motion in the house, is was negatived. He then 

 Kioved, for an account of the quantities of corn, that had 

 been imported from Ireland into Britain, and the quanti- 

 ties that had been exported from Britain into Ireland, for 

 the last ten years. — Negatived. 



Monday, April 4. In a committee on the corn bill, 

 objections were made to the clause, subjecting vefsek to 

 forfeiture, by Mr Alderman Curtis and Lord Sheffield. — 

 Opposed by the chancellor of exchequer, on a motion by 

 6'/r Peter Barrel, that L. 100 for every hundred tons of 

 the burden, Ihould be deposited in the hands of some pro- 

 per person till it fliould be proved that the vefsei was pro- 

 perly seized. The amendment was rejected ;— ayes 39, 

 noes 64. Mr Powys then moved, that the ports fhould 

 not be* opened for the importation of foreign wheat, till 

 the average price rose to 52s. instead of 48 s. as proposed, 

 contending that this would tend to encourage the agricul- 

 ture of the country. 



Mr R)<di.r strenuously opposed the motion. 



Lord 'Carysfjrt, Mr Pelha?n, Mr Pultney, Mr Bastard, 

 Lord Sheffield, Mr Harrison, Mr H. Browne, and Mr Fox, 

 supported the amendment. ^ By these gentlemen it was 

 in general contended, that the scarcity compJained of in 

 late years, had not been owing to a natural scarcity ; but 



