Commons Sitting of 2 June 1825

PRIVATE COMMITTEES—LONDON AND WESTMINSTER OIL GAS BILL.
Mr.H. Whitbreadpresented a petition from the directors of the London and Westminster Oil Gas Company, complaining of the manner in which that bill had been got rid of by the committee above stairs. After a long and laborious inquiry in the committee, of which he was chairman, and in which fifteen or sixteen counsel were heard from day to day, a number of persons, most of whom were interested in the Coal Gas companies, and not one of whom had attended for a single hour during the progress of the

1013
inquiry, came down on the last day, and voted against the bill. In this way a measure which would have been of great advantage to the public, had been lost, and with it no less a sum than 30,000 l. which had been expended in order to carry through parliament. The manner in which private business was conducted in committees above stairs was a disgrace to the country.
Mr. T. Wilsonconcurred in the necessity of a reform in the mode in which private business was conducted in committees.
Mr. W. Smithagreed, that the manner in which business was conducted, by committees above stairs called loudly for reform. So much did he disapprove of the practice pursued, that he had not entered a private committee room for many years.
Mr. Tremayneconcurred in the necessity of such a reform.
Mr. Calcraftthat the general system undoubtedly stood in need of reform; but it could not be denied that it was a matter of considerable difficulty. The practice of deciding on the merits of a question, without hearing it argued, was one of daily occurrence in that House. He by no means, however, meant to set up one vicious practice as a defence for another. He had not himself matured any plan of reform, but he thought the best precedent they could follow would be the Grenville act, the provisions of which had been found to be an effectual remedy for the abuses which prevailed in Election committees. He should recommend the appointment of a special committee by ballot, whose duty it should be to consider and report on the merits of private bills. The conduct of private committees above stairs, had given great dissatisfaction to the public.
Mr. Sykesthat in the present instance a measure of great public advantage had been thrown out by a majority of members, who had a direct private interest in opposing it, and who had voted against it without hearing a syllable of the evidence. He had never met with a case of more gross injustice.
Mr. Littletonexpressed his astonishment, that any individual, who had the slightest pretension to the character of a gentleman, or a man of common honesty, could venture to conduct himself in the manner in which some of the members of this committee had acted. That any member who had not heard a tittle of the
1014
evidence on a private bill should venture to come down on the last day and vote against it, was so scandalous a proceeding that he could not find language strong enough to express his reprobation of it. He could not think, that there was any resemblance between this case and that of the votes given by members in that House. It was the duty of private committees to decide on details of which they could only judge by hearing the evidence; whereas members in that hearing decided on principle, and might have other opportunities of judging of the merits of a question, independently of the arguments which they might hear in that House.
Mr. Trantconcurred in reprobating the conduct of private committees above stairs. For his part he was resolved never again to enter the door of a private committee room, until the business was put on a different footing.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he had abstained from voting on this committee, because he had been unable to attend it. Though there must be a great number of members in the House who voted on that committee, and who now heard their conduct reprobated, not one of them had ventured to contradict the statement.
Mr. Brightrecommended the immediate appointment of a committee.
Ordered to lie on the table.

LAW OF MERCHANT AND FACTOR.
Mr. J. Smithrose to present a petition on the subject of the law of Merchant and Factor. The petition was signed by the whole of the principal merchants of London, except one, who refused to sign it, because he was unwilling to sign a petition to the House on any subject. The petitioners complained of the Operation or certain laws relating to merchant and factor, which they described as most injurious to the general interests of the commerce of this country. It had fallen to him, sometime since, to introduce a bill on this subject; but, from circumstances which occurred in another House, his object was defeated. Another measure was then introduced, applying to the same question; but it was imperfect, and wholly inefficient to remedy the evil.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowthought the country was indebted to the hon. member for calling the attention of the House to this important subject.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, the subject was most important to the commerce of the

1015
country. The petition was that of the merchants of London; but it represented the opinions of the merchants of every town in England.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was not at all indifferent to its importance, and if any measure should be introduced respecting it, he was disposed to give it his best consideration.
Mr. Scarletthoped, that if any measure should be introduced, it would be so intelligible as to be understood by all. For his own part, he did not understand the bill of last year. He would not object to any measure which might be for the general benefit of the commercial body; but he hoped that it would not embrace that objectionable clause, which took the entire control of a man's property from him, and gave to another the power of raising money on it.
Ordered to lie on the table.

IMPRISONMENT FOR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS—PETITION OF R. CARLILE.
Mr.Broughampresented a petition from RichardCarlile, and six other individuals. The petitioners stated, that they had been prosecuted, and were immured in different prisons of the country, for not being Christians, and for stating their reasons why they were not so. They prayed that the House would rescind the various sentences which had been passed against them, and admit them to the same toleration that was enjoyed by other Dissenters. No one who knew him (Mr. Brougham) would suppose that he was inclined to patronize any species of indecent ribaldry against the institutions of the country, He considered such ribaldry to be a crime in itself, and the very worst mode of propagating any kind of opinions. For, suppose the party who held such opinions to be right, and the rest of the country to be in the wrong, the expression of then in ribald or indecent language was calculated to affront the feelings of those whom he ought to conciliate rather than offend if he wished to make them proselytes. At the same time, he thought that the law ought not to press too heavily upon them, because they appeared to be, in certain degree, enthusiasts and fanatics and toleration, as well as expediency required that they should not be subjected to that degree of punishment which would entitle them to be considered a martyrs to the principles, such as the were, that they professed. if they, had
1016
taken a bad way to attack the religion of the country, it was incumbent upon us not to take a bad way to defend it; and the worst. of all possible ways would be to inflict severer punishment than their offences required. Having thus endeavoured to guard himself against misconstruction, he would say, that he could conceive no harm as likely to accrue to religion from fair and free discussion; and that until the mode of discussion became so offensive as to excite against it the feelings of almost every man in the country, prosecutions for blasphemy were among the very worst methods of defending religion. That was his deliberate and sincere opinion; for he could hardly conceive any instance in which toleration could be carried too far, either to the religion professed or to the persons professing it.
Mr. Secretary Peelagreed, that prosecutions should not be instituted on the score of religious opinions, so long as those opinions were expressed in fair and temperate language; but, he contended, that as soon as they vented themselves in scurrilous attacks on established institutions, they deserved the attention of the civil authorities. He maintained that the libels published by Carlile and his fellow, petitioners were revolting to the feelings of every moral man in the country, and were therefore properly selected for prosecution. He did not see how Carlile could be held up as an object of mercy. So far from expressing any contrition for the offence he had committed, he gloried in it, and not only boasted that he would continue to repeat it, but actually carried his boast into execution. To his sister, the mercy of the Crown had been extended; and she had shown herself not undeserving of it, by refusing to participate any further in the blasphemous publications of her brother.
Mr. Monckridiculed the idea of defending religion by prosecution. There was no law in America against blasphemy, and yet no country in the world was more free from blasphemous publications.
Sir F. Burdettcontended, that all prosecutions for religious opinions were inexpedient. It was agreed on all hands, that religious opinions ought to be tolerated so long as they were expressed in temperate language; but it was now argued, that as soon as those opinions were so expressed, as to disgust every honest mind, then they ought, to be visited with

1017
punishment. Now, it appeared to him that under such circumstances they ought not to be noticed; because if they were as poisonous as was represented, they carried along with them their own antidote. If M. Carlile had not been prosecuted by the government, he would at this moment have been totally unheard of; whereas, by prosecuting him, the government had given him a notoriety which he could not otherwise have acquired; and had got themselves into a scrape from which they found some difficulty in getting extricated. The infliction of great severity on any man for his opinions, no matter how offensive they might be, was the most certain way, not to wean him from, but to confirm him in, those obnoxious opinions.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that so far was the punishment inflicted on these petitioners from having put down publications of this obnoxious character, that they were now sold openly in all parts of the town [hear]. It had been said, that if the discussion of religious truths were calmly conducted, it ought to be permitted. A wonderful admission truly; Why, where would be the use of the discussion of religion, if the argument was to be all on one side? He then pointed out the glaring inconsistency of denying to the poor the right of reading any discussion upon the truths of Christianity, and of allowing to the rich the privilege of having in their libraries the works of Gibbon, and all such writers.
Mr. Humesaid, that this was the only country in Europe where individuals were imprisoned for religious opinions. If our prisons continued to be filled with individuals suffering for religious opinions, England would succeed to the vacant post of inquisitor-general for Europe.
Mr. Peelsaid, it was ridiculous to talk of the prisons of the country being filled with sufferers for religious opinions, when there were not more than eleven persons confined for blasphemous publications; and of that number five had been prosecuted since his accession to his present office.
The Attorney-Generalcontended, that the prosecutions had been effectual in suppressing blasphemous publications; and argued, that it was unfair to blame ministers for keeping these individuals in prison, when they were consigned to it by a sentence of the court of King's bench, arising out of those prosecutions. They were most of them imprisoned for
1018
selling "Palmer's Principles of Nature;" and he would say that a more horrible, blasphemous, and scurrilous libel had never issued from the press. The juries who had tried these petitioners were not more shocked by the work itself, than by the manner in which the parties had ventured to defend it.
Mr. Broughamdid not blame the law-officers for prosecuting these individuals, but rather for leaving them unprosecuted, until their offences had risen to such a height as to be thought fit ground for altering the old statute law of the country. He blamed them for bringing down six new acts upon the country, without trying the efficacy of those which were in existence. Long before those acts were passed, Benbow had kindly offered the throats of several individuals to the knife. Why had he escaped prosecution? If any man deserved prosecution, it was that individual, but the government abstained from indicting him, and others who were equally culpable with him, in order that they might repeat their offences, and so afford a pretext for innovating upon the constitution. It had been said, that prosecutions were not instituted because juries would not convict. He had always said, that, though juries might not be inclined to convict for libels against the government, they would be ready enough to convict for libels inciting to assassination. With regard to "Palmer's Principles of Nature" he would undertake to say, that it was not half so bad as any publication of Hume or Gibbon. Voltaire's works were full of ribaldry and indecency, and yet they had not been prosecuted for corrupting the morals of the ladies and gentlemen at the west end of the town. If works of this description were to be prosecuted, the prosecutions should be directed to the works read by the rich, instead of being confined to works read exclusively by the poor.
Ordered to lie on the table.

REPEAL OF THE BUBBLE ACT.
The Attorney-Generalrose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 6th Geo. 1st cap. 18., commonly called the Bubble Act, as related to Joint-stock companies. He would shortly state to the House his object in introducing this bill. The act to which it related had of late excited considerable discussion in the courts of law and equity, and it appeared to be

1019
agreed on all hands, that its meaning and effect were altogether unintelligible. It was, in fact, impossible to ascertain what had been the intention of the legislature in passing that act. When, coupled with this fact, it was recollected, that the penalty imposed by the act, was, among others, that persons offending should be guilty of a præmunire,—that was to say, that they should incur the heaviest penalty for committing an offence against an unintelligible act of parliament—he thought he need state no more to induce the House to agree with him as to the necessity of repealing this act. But, there were other grounds which manifested that necessity still more strongly. From the year 1720, the year in which it was passed, down to the present time, Joint-stock companies had been formed for the most useful and laudable purposes, and many of them still existed. Some of them had been the means of acquiring great wealth to the individuals connected with them, and also advantageous to the public. Among them, the companies for the insurance of lives and property were the most eminent; and all of those, under the interpretation which was sometimes put upon this act, were said to be illegal. For the protection, then, of these individuals, it was highly expedient to repeal part of the existing law. He might be asked, whether it was his intention to propose any provision instead of it? And to this he must reply, that he had at first intended to do so, but that, after having very attentively considered the subject, he had been convinced that to do so would be at once difficult, unwise, and impolitic. The reasons which had induced him to believe that it would be inexpedient to legislate on this subject at all were, that up to the period of passing the Bubble act, although the commerce of the country had been extended to a very important degree, no legal enactments had been considered necessary. After the events which gave rise to this act in 1720, with the exception of a criminal prosecution, the nature of which was not very clearly understood, and which took place two years afterwards, no legal proceedings had been had under it, until ten or twelve years ago. It had, in fact, become a dead letter; and he had therefore a right to conclude that no such law was necessary. It could not be objected, in answer to this view of the subject, that it had not been exercised because it had
1020
accomplished the objects for which it was passed, because this had been done before, and companies were established shortly afterwards which had continued ever since. If any other hon. gentleman took a different view of the matter, it would be competent to him to bring in a bill for regulating companies in such a manner as he might think fit; but, he must be permitted to say, for his own part, that he did not think any such measure necessary. He would add, that he meant to insert in the bill he should bring in, a provision that it was not to interfere with any proceedings now depending in any of the courts, but that they were to be decided according to the law as it stood when those proceedings were commenced. There was another provision which he meant to add, with a view of facilitating the granting of charters by the Crown to companies for trading and other purposes. Under the charters as they were commonly granted, the persons incorporated were not individually liable for any of the debts of the company, but only so far as the corporate property extended. This circumstance caused considerable reluctance on the part of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown to grant charters. Persons wishing to form a company were therefore obliged to apply, in the first place, to parliament, for an act enabling the Crown to grant a charter, and afterwards for the charter, thus doubling the expense. To remedy this, he should propose a clause enabling the Crown, whenever application should be made for a charter, to insert in it a provision rendering any individual member of a corporation liable for the debts of that corporation, according to the judgment of the Crown in each particular case. Simple legislation had many advantages; he should not therefore substitute any act for that which he wished to repeal; for he thought it expedient that the Crown should have the power of exercising its discretion as to granting charters, and of modifying such charters according to the nature of the respective cases. He would now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal part of the act of the 6th Geo. 1st, cap.18, and to empower the Crown to grant Charters of Incorporation."
Colonel Daviesapproved of the motion, but feared that the learned gentleman's bill might encounter opposition in another place, from a learned lord who had already

1021
expressed his opinions on this subject. He regretted that the law, as laid down by lord Ellenborough, in deciding a case on this act, had not been adhered to; because, in his opinion, that decision sufficiently explained the act of parliament, and would have rendered the proposed bill unnecessary. A learned person in another House had uttered a general exclamation against all joint-stock companies. He supposed that learned person roust be completely acquainted with the laws; but if, in uttering his indiscriminate denunciation, he had spoken intelligently as a lawyer, it was palpable that he had spoken with the utmost possible ignorance, both as a statesman and a political economist.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the proposition of his learned friend was one which he concurred in, because he was satisfied that the interests of commerce required the proper encouragement and. protection of joint-stock companies. When the gallant member said that if lord Ellenborough's decision had not been called in question, the proposed bill would not have been necessary, he showed that by the possibility of that decision being disturbed, it was highly expedient to have the law made certain. That decision was, that all companies not prejudicial to the public interests were legal. But, where there were so many companies, was it fit that this question should be left to the consideration of the jury ? Where persons had embarked large properties in a speculation, ought they not to be guaranteed by some secure provision of the law, instead of having their interests left to the eloquence of a counsel, or to the discretion of a jury? He had no reason to doubt that lord Ellenborough's interpretation of the law was correct; but the law itself was still left in a state of uncertainty, and the object of his learned friend was, to remove that uncertainty. The impulse which had recently been given to commerce, and which would in all probability be extended much further, called for some further protection than that which existed. The mere provision, that parties should sue and be sued was not enough, as the inconveniences which were every day experienced, abundantly proved. His learned friend, in bringing in this bill, had done that for which the commercial world and the whole community would be infinitely indebted to him. Parties would in future be enabled to enter
1022
into their speculations, without any other restriction than that which the Crown would exercise in pronouncing upon the utility and propriety of their designs. He trusted that the House would approve of the proposition, and he had no reason to believe that it would experience any opposition in another quarter which had been alluded to, because it was evidently calculated to do away with all the evils of the present state of things.
Mr. K. Douglaswas glad to see this subject engaging the attention of the House. There were several companies in Scotland, which had subsisted for many years under an impression that they were legal, and without the least notion that they were incurring the penalties of an act which had become a dead letter. In sonic recent cases, however, great inconvenience had been experienced by the parties, in consequence of the objections arising under this act.
The Attorney-generalsaid, that the bill he proposed to bring in, was for the repeal of the Bubble act, which applied only to England. He believed it was intended to propose measures in the other House respecting Scotland.
Mr. Denmancould not agree with his gallant friend, as to lord Ellenborough's decision, because it left the law just in this state—the persons composing a company were liable to be indicted, and there were two points to be decided; the first by the jury, whether the object of the company was beneficial or injurious to the public; and the second what interpretation the judge might think fit to put upon the words of the act. Both these points were, in his opinion, very unfit to be left either to judge or jury. Since the passing of the act, only two cases had arisen upon it, in which the jury had found that the objects of the companies were beneficial; but it was nevertheless a subject which, in its nature, admitted of so much variety of opinion, that it was unfit to be left to the decision of a jury. The act to be repealed was a specimen of the inexpediency of occasional legislation. It was not passed until after the evils which, it pretended to remedy were over, and at the end of a century it was the cause of serious inconveniences, to obviate which another application to the legislature had become necessary. As to the power proposed to be given to the Crown to grant charters, he questioned the propriety of it.

1023
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

JUDGES' SALARIES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the English Judges' Salaries,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would be necessary for him to explain to the committee the state in which the question was left by the last discussion. The original resolution was met by an amendment for a further increase of the salary of the lord chief justice. That amendment was lost, and the resolution was carried, comprehending an increase of salary for the chief justices, puisne judges, master of the rolls, and vice-chancellor. He proposed subsequently to make a reduction of 500 l. a-year from the salaries, and give that as an increase to the retired allowances. He proposed to make the pension of the master of the rolls 3,300 l. a-year, and to give the same to the chief baron and the chief justice of the Common Pleas. The retired pension of the chief justice was 3,800 l. He proposed by a small addition to make it 4,000 l, which was the same allowance as that of a retired lord chancellor of England and of Ireland. One other resolution which he had to propose regarded the matter of some fees, now taken by the chief justice as part of his emoluments. It was for the House to determine eventually what should be done with those fees. The attention of government had been most anxiously given to the consideration, whether some or most of these fees might not be abolished, which, in the way of saving, unnecessary expense to the suitors, might be very desirable if it did not place a greater burthen on the public thereby. He would move, that those fees in the mean, time should be carried to the consolidated fund. On one point the government were already agreed. It related to those writs of error which were in their nature frivolous, or intended for delay. If the alteration which they anticipated should take effect, away would go a considerable portion of other fees hitherto receivable by the chief justice. He concluded by moving, that an additional 500 l. a-year be added to the retired allowances of the Puisne Judges.
Mr. J. Williamsenlarged on the advantages of arranging the salaries and pensions, so as to induce the best men to accept the office of judges, and to leave them no temptation to remain on the bench after the decay of their faculties
1024
and bodily strength had rendered them unfit for the duties of their station. They ought to take away the adhesive power of the bench over the inclination of the judge, by providing amply for his retirement. The retiring allowance ought to be increased to such a sum as would be an inducement to a judge to retire from the bench before he retired to the grave; for now retirement and the coffin were the same thing. To prevent the great mischief that must follow from the continuance of such persons on the bench, the temptation should be such as to make them retire the moment they were unfit to hold it. With these views, he proposed as an amendment an addition of 400 l. a-year to the retired allowances beyond the 500 l. now moved by the chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Denmanthought no case had been made out for an increase of salary; but, as it was important that judges should retire when they were no longer competent to discharge their duties, he thought it necessary to make an addition to the retired allowance.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the proposed scale of allowance was in perfect accordance with the sums granted to the lord chancellors of England and Ireland, on their retirement.
Dr. Lushingtonthought, that an adequate allowance ought to be given to the judges, whose infirmities required that they should retire. He declared, upon his honour and conscience, that he had seen judges preside on the bench, who were totally unfit to hold the situation. And when they considered the extreme injury caused by one wrong decision, they could not be too cautious in preventing any such decisions from being pronounced. But, in cases of life and death, a judge should, above all things, be in the full and entire possession of his faculties. The increased sum proposed to be given to the judges, would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits it would confer on the community. Those who looked to economy in this way, forgot that while they were saving hundreds, they were squandering thousands upon thousands in another way.
The Attorney Generalwas induced, upon mature reflection, to support the amendment. It was of the utmost importance to take away all inducement to judges to keep on the bench when their incapacity had made their retreat a matter

1025
of necessity. He knew there had been instances were the difference between the salary and pension had been a consideration of such a nature as to prevent a judge labouring under the greatest weakness from retiring, though his inclination would have led him to do it cheerfully, were it not for that. It would cost actually a less sum to the public to give the addition proposed, than the original resolution for granting 6,000 l. a-year to the puisne judges would have cost.
Mr. J. P. Grantapproved of the amendment, and said, that in Scotland they were not without instances of judges clinging to their pieces after the failure of their mental and bodily faculties. He thought fifteen years too long a period to exact, to entitle a judge to the retired allowance.
Mr. Whitmoresupported the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the amendment seemed to meet the general feeling of the House, and no duty could be more gratifying than to give way on a point of this nature. The discussion proved that the inclination of the judges had not been at all consulted in bringing this measure forward. In deed, he had made a point of not communicating with any one of them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his readiness to adopt the amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman. The scale of retired allowances for the other judges would, however, require some corresponding increase.
The resolutions for granting 3,500 l. to the Puisne Judges, and 3,750 l. to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Chief Baron, Master of the Rolls, and Vice-Chancellor, as retired allowances, were then agreed to. After which, the House resumed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Mr. Plunkettrose to move the postponement of the order of the day; for the commitment of the Catholic Relief Bill. The House would give him leave to state the reason of this proposition. He begged, then, to say, that his hon. friend the member for Westminster (sir F. Burdett) was unable to attend in his place that night, in consequence of severe indisposition; but he was in every expectation of being able

337
to attend on Friday next. The hon. baronet being very anxious to be present at the discussion in the committee, had desired him to move this postponement of the order to that day.
Mr. Littletonwished to have his bill relative to the elective franchise of Ireland postponed to the same day as that which had just been mentioned.
Lord Binningrose to correct a mis-statement which had gone abroad of what he had said on the second reading of the Catholic Relief bill. It had been stated, in several Edinburgh newspapers, that he had said, that, in his opinion, the destruction of the Protestant church in Ireland would be no great evil. He certainly had uttered no such sentiments; nor did he entertain them. He trusted the House would excuse him for setting himself right on this point, because nothing was more likely to injure him in the opinion of his countrymen, than a supposition that he felt any lukewarmness with respect to the Protestant church.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he was present when the noble lord had spoken on the occasion alluded to, and could undertake to say that he had uttered no such sentiments as those which had been attributed to him.

BONDED CORN.
On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Importation of Corn acts,
Mr. Curwensaid, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. gentleman to some points which he had intended to suggest to him on a former evening when this subject was before the House. He wished to remind him particularly of the fact stated in almost all the petitions which had been presented, that there was a sufficient quantity of corn now in the country for the consumption of the present year. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to the House any measure on this subject, would state, either from some information on which he could rely, or from his own belief, or upon some other satisfactory grounds, that a want of corn was likely to be experienced; as that could alone, in his opinion, justify an alteration in the present system. Unless the right hon. gentleman should be able to do this, he, however reluctantly, must oppose his resolutions. He had no doubt that any regulation which should have the
338
effect of preventing the averages from rising too high, would be beneficial to the country; but he repeated, in order to justify any alteration, it ought to be made out to the satisfaction of the House, that the home supply was not, or was likely not to be, equal to the necessary consumption.
Mr. Curteissaid, it was the general opinion here and in Ireland, that the produce would be amply sufficient for all the wants of the country in the present year. To propose any alteration which should have the effect of reducing the present price of corn would, he thought, under such circumstances, be a breach of faith with the farmers. In the present state of the House he should be sorry to have a topic of this importance decided; but, he should be very glad to hear what the right hon. gentleman had to propose, and to take it into consideration on some future day.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that after the discussion which this subject had undergone in the course of the last week, it would not be necessary for him to enter into any long discussion upon it. He wished only to bring before the consideration of the House, the law relating to foreign corn as it now stood, and the facts which were connected with that law, in order that they might both be distinctly understood. They were, then, simply these. In the year 1815, an act was passed, by which all foreign corn was prohibited from being admitted into the ports of Great Britain whenever the average prices should be under 80s. per quarter. A subsequent act of 1822, left the last act unaltered; but it provided, that foreign corn should be admitted when English corn had reached 70s. per quarter, upon payment of 17s. per quarter. This was the state of the law at the present moment, with regard to this description of corn. It had occured to him, and also to others who had paid attention to the subject, that under the present circumstances, looking to the high price which corn had reached, and to the deterioration which the corn now in the warehouses and under bond was likely to suffer, it was desirable that some facility should be afforded to the admission of that corn for home consumption, until the supply which the next harvest would afford should be available. This view was taken, not for the benefit of the individual

339
holders; but for that of the public. Indeed, no other consideration could have induced the government to recommend a departure from the present regulations, which affected this branch of commerce. Now, with respect to the facts, he begged to remind the House, that three weeks ago the price of English corn was 69s. per quarter. Since that period the price had been gradually rising. This day it was higher than on Monday last by three shillings per quarter, as he was informed. [An hon. member said, " four shillings."] Well, if it were so, he had a right to assume, that the former low prices were the consequences of an unnatural stagnation; and that the rise had taken place, owing to the time of year and the belief that no alteration was to be made in the existing laws; at least during the present year. His object was, to induce the holders of foreign corn now in bond to bring this corn into the market, between the present period and the 15th of August; and it would be necessary to hold out a sufficient inducement to them to do this. They might, as the law stood at present, bring this corn into the market, when wheat was at 70s., upon payment of a duty of 17s., and if they participated in the expectation which was entertained by many persons, that corn was likely to rise, they would of course abstain from bringing it into the market, unless the reduction of duty were sufficient to hold out an immediate inducement for them to do so. He had had some difficulty in determining what this reduction of duty should be. When he came down to the House on Thursday last he had studiously abstained from having any communication with the holders of foreign corn; because such a communication would necessarily have led to speculation. He had stated, that in his view of the subject, 8s. or 10s. would be a reasonable duty; and that such a reduction would be a sufficient inducement to the holders of foreign corn to bring it into consumption. He had since heard, that they would prefer keeping it back, and speculating upon the opening of the ports on the 15th of August. If the House should be of opinion, that 10s. was too high a duty, and that it would defeat the object which he had in view, namely, that of inducing the holders of foreign corn to bring it into the market before the next harvest, he should not be indisposed to listen to any suggestion for lowering the duty. His only object was, to adopt
340
that course which might consult the public advantage, and the landed interest of the country. His proposition was, to give the holder of foreign grain an option of bringing it into the market, in portions of one third, for the next three months, paying a duty of 10s. per quarter in each of the three months; but, if he did not bring it out between this and the 15th of August, it would remain subject to the present provisions of the law. His sole object was, to keep down the price of corn, and to prevent it from rising to an unreasonable extent, in the interval between this period and the next harvest. The alteration of the law as to wheat would, of course, extend to other minor articles. There was a small quantity of barley, and also a small quantity of American flour. The whole quantity of corn in bond amounted to about 400,000 quarters; and the effect of the introduction of these 400,000 quarters would depend altogether, on the state of the supply in this country for the next four months. In the year 1820, the introduction of a quantity of foreign oats had the effect of greatly depressing the market, while the introduction of a much larger quantity, in August last, scarcely affected the market at all, and indeed was generally admitted to have been attended with beneficial effects. From the present appearance of the corn markets all over the country, and the state of the market that day in London, there was obviously a tendency to increase of price. Under such circumstances, the introduction of a limited supply of corn was not likely to be followed by any inconvenience. On these grounds, he was anxious to recommend this measure to the adoption of the House. Part of the corn now in bond had been so for six years; part for not more than three or four years; a very considerable portion of it had been bonded within six weeks after the ports were closed, in 1819. Of course, a much greater expense had been incurred by some holders than by others; but, however he might feel for the situation of particular individuals, the House could not take these circumstances into their consideration; they must legislate upon public grounds. If the holders of foreign corn should be disposed to bring it into the market between this and the 15th of August, it would tend greatly to facilitate the arrangements which might be hereafter made on the general subject of the Corn laws. He wished it, however,

341
to be distinctly understood—and he was particularly anxious that there should be no misapprehension out of doors on a subject with respect to which the public were so sensitive—that the present measure had no reference to what might be the future intentions of government; but that it referred solely to the quantity of foreign corn now confined in bond. The second resolution which he had to propose referred to Canada corn. The quantity of Canada wheat now in the country did not exceed 20,000 quarters. On the 15th of this month, it would probably be liberated by operation of law; as it would be admitted duty free, when the average price exceeded 67s. With respect to this he should propose a prospective duty of 5s. a quarter, in lieu of all other prohibitory duties. Before he sat down, he wished to say one or two words with respect to some observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Taunton, on the view which he had taken of this subject on Thursday night. In the first place, he must observe, that his hon. friend was a member of the committee of 1821, and, he believed, he had done him the honour to concur in the report of that committee. He (Mr. H.) had always been opposed to a system of alternate monopoly and free trade. In the year 1815, a few days before the present chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the resolution which led to the bill of that year, there was a meeting, at Fife-house, at which he (Mr. H.) supported a measure of duty, and strenuously opposed a measure of alternate monopoly and free trade, He did not succeed in carrying his own views at that time; but his opinions remained unchanged. He congratulated his hon. friend, the member for Taunton, on entertaining a sounder view of this question than he did at that time; for his opinion n then was, that Corn bills were nothing more than pretences for raising rent. He now took a just view of the protection which was due to the landed interest, The right hon. member concluded by moving two resolutions, for carrying into effect the proposition he had submitted to the committee.
Mr. Baringcontended, that his opinions with respect to the Corn laws had undergone no alteration since the period to which the right hon. gentleman alluded. What he objected to at that time was, not a due protection of the landed interest, but an undue increase of that protection.
342
The right hon. gentleman had stated, that he had been unable to carry his own views of this question, in the year 1815. But, if he had been defeated at Fife-house, he had nevertheless come down to that House, as zealous a defender of the bill, as if it had originated with himself. He did not find fault with the right hon. gentleman's own opinions. The opinions which he objected to were those which had been foisted upon the right hon. gentleman, and of which he had afterwards undertaken the defence. He (Mr. B.) had never said, that Corn bills were mere pretexts for raising rent; but, considering rent as the surplus, after all the charges and expenses of cultivation were satisfied, he had certainly contended, that the existing system was calculated to raise it to an exorbitant extent. The degree of protection which should be extended to the agricultural interest, was a point on which the House could not legislate with too much circumspection. He had opposed the protection bill in 1815, because he conceived that a sufficient protection already existed, and that an increase of that protection was calculated to prejudice the other classes of the community. With respect to the measure now proposed by the right hon. gentleman, he thought it, in the main, extremely desirable. He could not help regretting, that the opinions which had been promulgated with respect to the state of the supply, and the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, as to the state of the currency, which had been very much misunderstood, had created a great deal of unnecessary alarm. He believed there was not the slightest ground for the apprehensions which existed out of doors, either as to the price of corn or the state of the currency. He objected to the period of the 15th of August, to which the right hon. gentleman had extended the operation of his measure. He thought it would be much better to give the holders of foreign corn a month or six weeks to bring their corn into the market. This would operate as an inducement to them to bring it into consumption, before the prospect of the harvest was sufficiently advanced to make them speculate on the expediency of withholding it. The present measure would interfere directly with the interests of speculators in English corn, but he did not mean to intimate that such speculators were entitled to compensation. When the interests of the public were

343
under consideration, parliament could not tie up its hands, because the interests of individuals would suffer. He thought a higher duty might be imposed. When corn could be imported at 33s. the price in Dantzic being 25s., with an allowance of Ss. freight, it ought to pay more than 10s. duty. The price at which it could be sold in our markets would be 43s. This was a pretty fair estimate of the value of the bonded corn. If, then, even a duty of 15s. were proposed, it would be still a boon to the holders, and he was satisfied they could not object to it, while it would be much to the advantage of the consumer. This, however, he merely threw out as his own opinion, without proposing any alteration to that effect.
Mr. J. Benettapproved of the project of bringing the bonded corn to market, but objected to a duty so low as lOs., on the ground that the importers would put the difference between that and the present importing duty into their own pockets. The difference from 10s. to 17s. on the stock in hand had been calculated at 140,000l. Now, he saw no reason for giving such a boon to the holders of bonded corn. If they were allowed to bring the corn at all to market, it ought to be on terms as little prejudicial as possible to the agricultural interests. He deprecated a reduction of the duties, under any apprehension of a rise of prices, for that he regarded as very improbable. An allusion to such apprehension was often attended with bad effects in the market; and if it was stated in that House, that it would be difficult to provide corn until the new corn came in, it would tend to raise the price of corn. He saw no reason for departing from the present duty of 17s., and should, therefore, suggest that that duty should not be altered.
Mr. Leslie Fosterbelieved that the letting in the bonded corn at that moment, at any and at whatever duty, would be the best thing that could be done for the benefit of the home grower. For, if once the ports were opened, which would certainly be the case if this measure did not pass, the whole six years' accumulation of wheat which was now lying in the ports of Poland would be poured in upon us, and give a shock to the landed interest which it would be years in recovering. The corn to which he alluded was now selling on the continent for 20s. a quarter: freight and insurance included, it could
344
be imported at 28s. That was the evil that the agricultural classes really had to fear. The hon. gentleman sat down by stating, that he was in favour of letting in the bonded flour, as well as the wheat: but at a duty of 4s. per cwt., instead of 2s. 9d., which he did not think sufficient.
General Gascoynesupported the admission of the bonded corn, and contended that it was an aid given to the land-owners, rather than any benefit to the public. No man in that House would say, there was a sufficiency of corn in the country, to supply the home market till the next harvest. He was of opinion that, even at l0s duty, the corn let in would not be brought to market, but would be kept to take the chance of higher prices. He therefore moved as an amendment, that the admission duty should be 8s. only.
Mr. J. Benettsaid, in explanation, that his only objection was, to give this great boon to the corn importers.
Mr. Sykesapproved of the principle. Considering the losses which the importers must have sustained, they were entitled to this permission to dispose of their corn. The revenue was not sought to be benefitted by this measure; end he therefore saw no reason why the best terms should not be given the corn-holders. The duty of 10s. appeared exorbitant. He thought 5s. sufficient.
Sir Mountague Cholmeleyin reply to what had fallen from the gallant general, who had asserted, that no man in this House would venture to say there was a sufficiency of corn in the country to supply the home market till the next harvest said: I rise to assure the hon. House, that I entertain no apprehension on that subject. I will now give the House my reasons. I live in a corn country, where I have resided the greater part of the last winter amongst a very intelligent body of agriculturists who have assured me, that the late harvest was superabundant; was considerably more than an average crop, and would exceed the supply of former years. We know by the returns made to this House, that, during the last six years, the average price not exceeding 5Ss. the supply has been equal to the demand, and no importation has been allowed. Whence, then, arise any apprehensions now? It is the practice in the county of Lincoln, and those counties more distant from the metropolis, to defer thrashing out their wheats, till the counties nearer the great mart fur corn are exhausted. In aid of

345
the farmer, liberal landlords have lately deferred their Lady Day rental till Midsummer; which will also account for the farmer, his tenant, keeping his wheat in store till the barley is disposed of and the malting season gone by. I repeat again my conviction, that there is no want of bread corn in this country.—My wish is, to allay the apprehensions of the mercantile gentlemen who argue on this topic so differently from the landed proprietors, and who, I think, do not consider how differently the latter are circumstanced from the former. Let us compare the situation of the capital of the manufacturer with the capital of the country gentleman. The capital of the former is at his own command, he can shift it with the policy of the times; if one trade or speculation does not succeed he flies to another: he has the choice of the markets of the whole world. It is not so with the landed proprietor; his capital is in most cases chained down to his native place, it is chained down by the law of entail. There is an elasticity, too, in the merchant, which does not belong to the agriculturist; he rises quicker after a fall. Will this hon. House, will the legislature of the country, consent to abolish the law of entails? will they, in the spirit of free trade, sanction such a disfranchisement of our estates? I trust not; I desire it not; for if corn falls, if rents fail, how am I, how is any man to provide for his family? We are too much attached to the soil to abandon the country, and follow the wings of fortune.—We prefer remaining at our post where we serve the nation as magistrates, as commissioners in various offices, without any prospect of gain. All we desire in return is, the protection of the laws at present in existence; which uphold the rich and maintain the poor.—Before I sit down I wish to warn those gentlemen, converts to the new system of free trade, that if an unlimited importation of corn is allowed, they may expect a competition from a corn company.—Why not a corn stock company, as well as a milk or an oil company? If such a stock of three or four millions be established, they would soon glut the metropolis with corn: they would regulate the prices in Mark Lane; and Mark Lane rules the prices over the whole country. I have only now, Sir, to add, that I shall give my vote in favour of the resolution to allow foreign corn in bond to be admitted to the home market, on the principle of
346
Relief to the merchant, and because I believe the quantity is so inconsiderable, that it will not interfere to depress the prices of the stock in hand, which is abundant till the next harvest.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonprotested against a high duty, on the ground that whatever the duty was, it attached to the price of the article, pro tanto, and, in effect, fell upon the consumer. It appeared to him that a duty of 5s. ought to serve all purposes. Besides the consideration of keeping down the price of corn, by bringing this bonded grain to market, there was another which struck him as forcibly, recommendatory of this measure, and that was the capital, estimated at a million, locked up in this corn. Upon that ground alone it was the duty of the House to take measures for putting that large capital into circulation. He concluded by moving, as a second amendment, the reduction of this duty to 5s.
Mr. Farrandsaw no reason why there should be any duty at all imposed on this corn. Whatever the duty was, it fell eventually upon the consumer. He moved, as a third amendment, that the corn be taken out of bond duty free.
Colonel Woodobjected to a reduced duty, as it looked like a beginning to make an alteration in the Corn laws. He was quite sure that if the corn rose to 70s., these holders would bring their stock to market. He protested against any alteration in the Corn laws, and recommended gentlemen to withdraw all the amendments.
Mr. Crippssupported the resolution. He had not a doubt the effect would be, that the whole of the bonded grain would come into the market as soon as the law allowed the operation. It was true that corn had risen within the last few days, and that event was naturally to be attributed to the result of the decision on the motion of the hon. member for Bridgnorth. There was every prospect, from the weather and the state of the crops, of a good harvest. He wished the hon. members would withdraw their amendments, and allow the resolution to pass unanimously.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as far as be could judge of the sense of the House, it was in favour of making 10s. the rate of duty. As the measure proposed was intended as a boon, he did not think that the holders of the bonded corn lad any right to complain. If he thought the duty of 10s.

347
would have the effect of keeping that corn out of the market, he should certainly vote for a lower rate; but believing that no such result would follow, he should support the original resolution. The committee would do him the justice to believe that he was not influenced by any consideration of the miserable amount of revenue that would be derived from the higher amount of duty.
Mr. Handleyexpressed his concurrence in the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, as far as the 10s. duty on bonded corn; but he could not approve the plan for importing wheat from Canada at the intended low duty.
Mr. J. Maxwellsaid, that though he was a county member, and connected with the agricultural interest, he would never support, in that House, a protecting duty, which was detrimental to the interests of the other great classes of the community. Looking, however, at the farmer as a manufacturer of grain, he did not think him so entitled to the same protection against foreign competition, as other manufacturers received. He thought he ought to be protected to the extent of the poor rates, and the particular duties drawn from agriculture.
Mr. Moncksaid, he understood the high duties to be sought for, for the protection of the country gentlemen; because, as the House was informed, they were men who lived on their estates, spent their money in the country, and were also most valuable to the state by acting as unpaid magistrates. Truly, all these were most important services; but he did not see that they were altogether unrequited. From the calculations which had been made, it appeared, that the effect of the present Corn laws was, to raise the price of the quarter of wheat to 70s., and that without them it would not exceed 50s. Now, taking our consumption at 11 millions of quarters, as was contended by some hon. members, here was a duty upon the great body of the people of 14 millions, for the benefit of the country gentlemen. He did not mean to say that their services were overpaid; but after this, lie hoped no man would assert that they were wholly unpaid. He should support the original resolution, because he felt that the country in general would derive benefit from it.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he had not adverted to the quantity of corn in the country. He had most cautiously guarded himself
348
against the expression of any opinion on that subject. His resolution was not founded upon it. It was founded, not upon any speculative opinion, but upon his knowledge of the fact, that there was a quantity of bonded corn likely to perish in the warehouses, and on his wish that it should be gradually brought into the market, for the purpose of keeping down the price, and of keeping it steady. If it was the general sense of the committee that he should lower the duty at which this should be brought out, he would willingly assent to it; but, he did not find that to be the prevailing wish. As to the apprehension that what had been said on the subject of the proposed alteration, had produced the impression made on the money-market since Friday last, it was, he must say, quite absurd. The discussion took place on Thursday, and the impression was not on the next day, when all that passed must have been well known, but on the day after. He did not seek for the cause of that impression, but most certainly he was convinced that it must have originated from the same cause, not relative to this question, operating on that most sensitive machine. With respect to any depression which might have been produced in the foreign exchanges as against this country, he thought it was a subject which ought not to excite alarm in the minds of any; or that any opinion unfavourable to our general prosperity could be drawn from it. It was quite ridiculous to entertain such an apprehension. The exchanges had been for a long time against other countries, and in favour of this, and yet we did not see any general depression of their commercial prosperity produced by that circumstance. The recent slight turn against us had arisen from circumstances which must be of a temporary nature and which would, in a very brief period, work their own remedy.
Mr. Westernsaid, that if he concurred in the proposition at all, it would be in the terms of the original resolution. On the general question of the Corn laws, he would observe, that on the whole their practical consequences had been beneficial to the country. It had been prognosticated, that after the passing of those laws, corn would never be under 80s. a quarter. The events that had occurred were the most conclusive answer. Besides, notwithstanding the numerous imputations thrown out against the landed interests, rents had been, since that time, consider-

349
ably diminishing. The Corn laws had not been fairly dealt by. Since their enactment, the fluctuation in the price of corn had been nothing like that which it was at former periods. A right hon. gentleman had talked of the fluctuation in the price of corn having been from 112s. to 38s.; but it ought to be recollected, that when it was 112s. it was under the principle of free trade, and that when it was 38s., it was under the protection duty.
Mr. Humepositively denied that the whole country was satisfied with the present state of the Corn laws. In the name of the manufacturing interest, he protested against any such assumption.
The first resolution was agreed to without division. On the second resolution, for putting an end to the existing prohibitory duties on corn imported from our colonies, and substituting a duty of 5s. a quarter,
Mr. Leslie Fosterobserved, that the resolution stood on a very different footing, from the last. The question to be determined was, what was the amount of duty that ought to be imposed? Now, the proposed resolution assumed at once, that 5s. a quarter on Canadian wheat was the fit and proper duty. It might be so; but some previous investigation was surely necessary. If we were prepared at once to say, that 5s. a quarter was the proper duty on wheat imported from Canada, why were we not prepared to settle the whole corn question, and to say that 10s. or 15s. was the proper duty on wheat imported from Dantzic? It was said, that the average price of wheat in Canada was 38s., the freight would be 12s.; and it was now proposed to add a duty of 5s., making altogether only 55s. And, besides, how did they know that 38s. was actually the average price of wheat in Canada? It might turn out, that the average price was much less. Parliament ought to have evidence on these points, before any thing was determined upon. With regard to the question respecting the duty on foreign wheat, it would be necessary first to ascertain the price of foreign wheat. He had a document in, his possession which would show what had been the experience on that point of some of our neighbours. Rotterdam lad been for some years supplying itself with corn wherever it could get it cheapest. It was a fair conclusion, that whatever was the price of wheat at Rotterdam, was the price at which foreign wheat, if not subject to any duty, might have been sold in London; the expense
350
of freight being much the same in both cases. The price of wheat per quarter at Rotterdam, during the last five years, was as follows:—In 1820, 36s. 10½d. in 1821, 33s. 5d. in 1822, 29s. 9½d. in 1823 30s. 5d. and in 1824 32s. 10½d. Thus it appeared, that the average price of the last five years was 32s. a quarter, being the prime cost in the wheat country, and the expense of freight. There could be no doubt that foreign corn could be had as cheap in England; and the question therefore was, what was the amount of duty on that price, which would operate to secure a fair remuneration to our agriculturists? It was necessary to avoid the two extremes—either of dearness, by which our manufactures were distressed, or of cheapness, when the distress of the agricultural re-acted on the manufacturing interest. The experience of late years had pretty fully determined what ought to be the price of corn in this country. He agreed with an hon. member, that it ought to be about 65s. But all this would be a proper subject for inquiry in the next session of parliament. The present resolution, however, allowed the importation of Canadian corn, including the duty, at 55s. He thought the House ought to pause, before they agreed to such a resolution.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his hon. Friend expressed himself at a loss to comprehend on what principle Canadian corn was to be allowed to be imported into this country on terms different from those required with reference to the corn of other countries. The principle was clear: Canada was a colony belonging to this country; the Canadians were our fellow-subjects, and were entitled to our peculiar favour and protection. If his hon. friend's argument were good against Canada, it would have been good against Ireland in 1806. If the subject was to be looked at in so narrow a point of view, the free importation of corn from Ireland in 1806 ought to have created great alarm. But, had we no motives to induce us to deal liberally by our colonies? Did his hon. friend forget the state of the different colonies in the world? Did he forget what had led to the alienation of the Spanish colonies from the mother country? Among the principal causes of that alienation were the measures adopted by the Spanish government to prevent the cultivation of the vine, and to cramp colonial industry. By such policy Spain had lost

351
her colonies; and we should indeed be short-sighted, were we to imitate her example. Canada could send us nothing but her raw produce. If we excluded that, we cut off all communication with Canada; and therefore, looking at the subject in a commercial view, but above all, looking at it in a political view, we ought to permit, under favourable terms, the importation of Canadian corn. His hon. friend appeared to have forgotten that a large proportion of the population of that very Canada consisted of his own countrymen. But two years ago, parliament passed a vote to enable numbers of poor half-starved Irishmen to emigrate to Canada. If we did all we could to send them out, but when they got out, did all we could to starve and distress them, then indeed the hon. member for Aberdeen's opposition to the plan of emigration would be well founded. The system on which we ought to act., was to give encouragement to our colonies; to cherish their energies; and thereby to add to the wealth, and, what was more, to the political strength of the British empire in every part of the world.
Mr. Newmansaid, he was favourable to the importation of corn from Canada, but great precautions ought to be taken to prevent our receiving the corn of the United States instead of that of our own colony. He was informed, that, in contemplation of the present measure, cargoes of corn had been sent from Europe, in order to be reshipped from Canada to this country. Any attempt of this kind ought to be strictly watched.
Colonel Woodsaid, he could not give his assent to the present resolution. If we adopted it, although only with reference to Canada, there was an end to the principle of our Corn laws. At present, according to those laws, when our wheat rose to 67s. a quarter, our ports were open to wheat from Canada: when it rose to 80s. to wheat from foreign countries. Instead of breaking down this principle, let the price of 67s. if it were thought too high, be lowered. Let it be lowered to 50s., or to any other sum; but let us not entirely depart from the present system of our Corn laws, by enacting, that whatever may be the price of wheat in this country, our ports shall be open to Canadian wheat at a duty of five shillings a quarter. All that the agriculturists wanted was a fair protecting duty; and it was the interest of all classes of the community that they should have it.
Mr. Baringsupported the resolution, on the grounds which had been so well stated by the chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no fear that European corn would go to Canada, to be sent from thence to this country: as the freight would be too high to render such a speculation profitable. Nor would there be any difficulty in preventing the importation of corn into Canada, from the United States, as it must pass a broad river, and any attempt of the kind might easily be detected.
Mr. Huskissoncould not admit the existence of any of the dangers which hon. gentlemen seemed to apprehend. As to Canada, what was the situation of that colony four years ago? They sent us corn in return for our manufactured goods; but their bills were protested, for we put their corn under lock. Was it to be expected that the inhabitants of the colony, having the feelings of Englishmen, could submit to a continuation of such treatment? It was our interest to behave towards them with the utmost liberality. He confessed himself the more surprised at the alarm which had been expressed by hon. members with respect to the object of this resolution, as it was six weeks since he had mentioned his intention of submitting it to the House; and as not the slightest apprehension had been expressed on the subject in a single petition among the many which had been presented from all parts of the kingdom.
Mr. Newmansaid, be had been informed that a vessel had been chartered at Hamburgh with corn to go to America, and then return to England, bringing that corn into the English market. The idea, therefore, of corn being exported to Canada and imported into England was not wholly void of foundation, as the hon. gentleman seemed to imagine.
Mr. Lockhartopposed the resolution, and contended, on the authority of Tacitus, that it was not the interest of the mother country to extend too much protection to the agriculture of a colony. That historian, related that, during a famine in the reign of Claudius, it was discovered that there were only fifteen days' provision in Rome. This created considerable consternation, and Tacitus in describing it mentioned, with great regret and indignation, that in consequence of certain immunities granted to the colonies, Italy, which had formerly exported corn to all her provinces, was left at the mercy

353
of Sicily, Egypt, and Africa, for the daily support and maintenance of her inhabitants. He trusted that the rulers of this country would take a hint from the remarks of that author, and not leave England dependant on any foreign nation whatsoever for a supply of the most requisite necessary of human life.
The resolution was then agreed to.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. W. Smithmoved the further consideration of the report on this bill. On the motion that, the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Robertsonopposed it. He contended, that the Protestant Dissenters were not entitled to the privileges which this bill would bestow upon them, because they were not even so much of Christians as the Mahometans. These Protestant, Dissenters denied the divine mission of Christ, which the Mahometans admitted; in proof of this position, the hon. member read several passages from the Koran. He then proceeded to show that even the Jews were better Christians than the Dissenters, and concluded by moving, that this report be taken into consideration this day six months.
Nobody being found to second this amendment, it fell to the ground. The original motion was then put, and carried, and was then committed.
Mr. W. Smithin the committee, said he would not reply to the hon. member's observations, for the hon. member shewed himself equally unacquainted with the measure before the House, and with the principles of the Dissenters.