BRISTOL PETITION AGAINST THE CORN BILL. (Hansard, 19 May 1814)

§ Mr. Hart Davis
could not forbear saying a few words in favour of the petition of his constituents, to whose interests the passing of the Bill before the House would be a serious injury. He hoped that the new measure would at least be postponed till the next session; as there was not yet that strong necessity which alone could authorise its adoption.

Mr. Western
congratulated the hon. member on the circumstances of his constituents having so implicitly followed his advice. He understood that the hon. gentleman had thought proper to write a letter to his constituents, informing them that there was a combination between the Irish members and the landed interest of the House, to bring in a Bill for the regulation of the price of corn, which would have a necessary tendency to enhance that price, and advising them to petition against the Bill. It would seem, therefore, that they had lost no time in following the advice of their representative, by subscribing and sending up the petition to him.

§ Mr. Protheroe
observed, that the hon. member ought to have known what the 967 contents of the letter were to which he had alluded, before he attempted to make so decided a quotation from it. When the measure was first brought forward, he wrote, not to his constituents, but to the mayor of Bristol, informing him that such a matter was before the House, and that in his opinion, if it were carried, it might tend to raise the price of corn; and he begged the mayor that he would submit the contents of the letter to the people of Bristol, for the purpose of learning their opinions. As this letter had been introduced to the attention of the House, he must beg leave to read another letter which he had lately written in answer to that which he had received from the mayor of Bristol along with the petition. [Here the hon. member read a letter to the House, in which, after stating his receipt of the petition, he expressed his satisfaction to find that his constituents held the same opinions on the subject with himself. At the same time, he told them that it would be their duty, in case the House should pass the measure, to submit to it with patience.]

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, he hoped this second letter would make as deep an impression on the minds of his constituents as the former evidently bad done. In his first letter the hon. member had said that the Irish members and the landed interest had combined together for the purpose of keeping up their rents. (No, no, from Mr. Protheroe.) Then if he had not used the word "rents," he had employed that of "interests." Such expressions could not fail to excite the passions of the people against the measure. For himself, he could only say, that in bringing forward the measure, he had never had the remotest idea of raising the price of corn. He believed that the effect of the proposed regulations would be, to make the price more steady, which would be no less a benefit to the consumer than to the grower.

§ Mr. Protheroe
begged the hon. baronet, as well as the member for Essex, would take the trouble to make themselves masters of the expressions he had actually made use of, and not impute to him language which he had never held. He had never said that the Irish members and the landed interest were combined together; but merely, that the union of these two interests would, in his opinion, cause the measure to be carried. Viewing, the measure in the same light as he did last 968 year, namely, that it was likely to raise the price of corn, he thought it merely his duty to inform the mayor of his sentiments, that through him they might come to the knowledge of his constituents.

§ Mr. Horner
could not help feeling that the hon. gentleman had been rather too harshly treated by the gentlemen on the other side of the question. The hon. baronet, and those who agreed in opinion with him, not contented with schooling their opponents as to the mode in which they ought to state their arguments to the House, had also thought proper to go a step farther, and prescribe to them the manner in which they ought to correspond with their constituents. The conduct of the hon. member for Bristol had, in his opinion, been that of an honourable and public spirited member of parliament. Nothing could be more beneficial, than the existence of a free and constant intercourse and communication between a representative and his constituents. Thinking as the hon. member did, even if he had advised his constituents to petition against the measure, it would have been good and wholesome advice: nothing could be better judged, when the minds of men were heated on the subject of any measure, than to advise them to state their sentiments to parliament, and to leave it to the wisdom of parliament to do with it as might be deemed most advisable for the general interest.

§ Mr. Huskisson
remembered having seen the letter of the hon. gentleman in the public news-papers. It must have been written before the hon. baronet had brought forward his Resolutions. If the hon. member had taken a little more time before he wrote the letter, it would in his opinion have been better, in a matter of such delicacy as that, of the corn-laws. That it was written before the Resolutions were brought forward, was obvious from the hand-bill, which called the inhabitants of Bristol to petition against the Bill of sir Henry Parnell, the object of which was to raise the price of bread. Such a statement as this would very naturally induce the people to petition against any measure. The fact was, that there was no Bill of sir Henry Parnell at the time before the House. A Bill had lately been brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowing at all times the free exportation of grain; but as yet there was no other Bill before the House. He was as sincere in his wish that the consumer should be pro- 969 tected as the hon. and learned gentleman Could be. To the proceedings in parliament the people would look with anxiety, because all were interested in the question; but whenever the measure should be decided on, he trusted it would be decided for the benefit of the community at large, and not for that of any particular interest. He trusted, that in any farther communication with his constituents, the hon. gentleman would continue to inculcate to them the sentiments or his second letter, which none admired more than himself.

§ Mr. Protheroe
did not think himself obliged to consult any person in the House about his duty. If his communication had been premature, that of many other members had been more premature. [Here the Speaker informed the hon. member that the conduct of any other member could not be brought forward by him.] An hon. member, adverting to his conduct, had cautioned the House against being influenced by clamour out of doors. He trusted, that he should always be equally on his guard against any clamour in that House. [The Speaker here recommended to the hon. gentleman to confine himself within the limits of the narrowest defence of his own conduct.] Mr. Protheroe concluded by observing, that he perfectly well knew of this measure last year, and that it was only then postponed for want of due time.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
deprecated all enquiry into the communications between members and their constituents. Had the hon. gentleman entertained the opinions of the right hon. gentleman below him, he would have done wrong in writing as he did to his constituents; but with his sentiments he had acted properly in writing to them. As to what had been said about the Bill not being before the House, the report of the committee of the former year was before the House, and it was notorious that a Bill was about to be brought in by the hon. baronet. An alarm had been then taken by many parts of the country; and if he thought the alarm justifiable, he did right in calling the attention of his constituents to the measure.