Commons Sitting of 11 May 1826

PETITION OF COLONEL BRADLEY, COMPLAINING OF THE CONDUCT OF COLONEL ARTHUR.
Mr. Humesaid, he had been

1099
requested to present a petition from colonel Bradley, late in the West-India service, complaining of having undergone a series of unmerited injuries, and been visited with ruin and disgrace for the upright and honest discharge of his duty as a British officer. The petitioner had been twenty years in his majesty's service, and had attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the second West-India regiment. Two of his commissions he had purchased, and was promoted by service to the rank he ultimately attained. For eighteen years he was exposed to all the perils of the inhospitable climate of the West Indies, and in proof of the uniform propriety of his conduct, and the unwearied activity of his services, he appealed to the documents and testimonies in the offices of the commander-in-chief and earl Bathurst, and to the written and verbal declarations of his royal highness the duke of York, sir Henry Torrens, sir Herbert Taylor, sir George Cockburn, and other distinguished individuals. In the year 1819, the regiment of the senior officer in command at Honduras, colonel Arthur, was put upon half-pay. The consequence was, that he became incapable of holding a command, in virtue of his mere rank upon the half-pay list. The petitioner being at that time second in command, the whole responsibility and charge, according to the regulations of the British army, devolved upon him. Because, however, he thought fit respectfully to insist upon his right to the command, he was put under arrest, confined for a period of ten months, deprived of the benefit of a court martial, and finally, by the insidious arts and misrepresentations of his enemies, was dismissed from the service, with a right of sale of a majority only. The dependency of Honduras was governed by a superintendant, appointed by the governor of Jamaica. In July, 1814, colonel, then major Arthur, was appointed to that office, which was purely of a civil nature. At that time, the military command belonged to major Massey. It remained with him till the December following, when by his resignation, it devolved upon colonel Arthur, in his capacity of senior regimental commissioned officer on the station. In 1818, the petitioner arrived at Honduras; and found himself by the date of his commission, second in command. Early in the next year, official intelligence was received of the reduction of colonel
1100
Arthur's regiment, the York Chasseurs. Several conversations took place between the petitioner and colonel Arthur, in which the latter always stated, that he was perfectly aware that the reduction of his regiment would deprive him of his command. In June 1819, the York Chasseurs embarked at Jamaica, and in August were disbanded in Canada; but no notice was taken by colonel Arthur; though it had since been proved by his own returns, that he had received notification of his being placed on half-pay, on the 25th of October. The petitioner, feeling the deep responsibility of his situation, applied to colonel Arthur, and became urgent to know on what authority he continued to hold the command. Colonel Arthur, however, would give no further explanation of his conduct, than, by asserting, that he had received letters informing him that he was to remain on full pay. The petitioner feeling his anxiety increased every day, by the unsatisfactory and mysterious proceedings of colonel Arthur; and having tried every conciliatory means in vain, and exhausted every verbal remonstrance, deemed it his duty to address a respectful letter to him, on the 22nd of May, 1820, calling on him to state the authority by which he still continued to hold the command of the king's troops, after it was notorious that his regiment had been disbanded. To this letter colonel Arthur returned no answer, but convened an irregular and motley assemblage of civil and military persons, to take it into consideration. The petitioner declined to attend this meeting, though he stated his readiness to wait upon colonel Arthur in private. In consequence of this refusal he was arrested, and stigmatised in garrison orders as a person guilty of unmilitary, insubordinate, and mutinous conduct. He requested to be brought before a court martial without delay, and called for a copy of the charges against him. He was kept in close custody in that pestilential climate 312 days. Amidst the various subterfuges brought forward to frustrate the petitioner's applications for justice, it had been asserted, that colonel Arthur held a commission, dated as far back as 1814. Whether his conduct could be affected by a document he had never seen, and which was never made known to the troops at Honduras, the petitioner did not stop to inquire; but he affirmed, that this commission had never

1101
been heard of, until, in 1824 it was brought forward as a pretext for supporting colonel Arthur's authority in a court of law. While the petitioner was under confinement, he sent at different times three reports to sir Henry Torrens, as colonel of the regiment; but none of these communications were noticed. Finally, while expecting an opportunity of vindicating his character, he learned with grief and astonishment, that he was removed from the army with the sale of a majority only, and that was disposed of while his royal highness the commander-in-chief knew that he was a prisoner at Honduras. The petitioner, finding all redress denied, was compelled to institute an action at law against colonel Arthur for false imprisonment, which having come to trial, sir Henry Torrens and sir Herbert Taylor were examined as witnesses. Sir Henry Torrens swore that four general orders had been issued, which conferred the power on colonel Arthur; yet, after the case for the plaintiff had been closed, the opposite party produced a commission, said to have been given by general Fuller in 1814, and which both sir Henry Torrens and sir Herbert Taylor swore gave him the command. Upon the trial, a verdict was obtained by colonel Bradley, from which it must necessarily be inferred, that colonel Arthur was only entitled to imprison colonel Bradley so long as he continued in the service, and that the extension of the imprisonment beyond that period was a grievance calling for damages. Colonel Bradley further complained, that pending his action with colonel Arthur, the government thought proper to send that gentleman out of the country, by means whereof he was unable to recover either the damages, the costs, or his expenses. Thus after twenty years of arduous duty in the service of his country, was this gentleman dismissed from his station in the army, which he had filled, not only without reproach, but with the entire satisfaction and approbation of his fellow officers. He therefore considered the case one of extreme hardship, to be thus dismissed and thus disgraced, when the very highest degree of charge that could be made out against him was an error of judgment, arising from a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the rules of the service. He had examined those rules, and it was his decided opinion, that according to the construction of those rules, colonel Bradley had a
1102
right to the command of the troops; for in no case ought an officer on half-pay to have the power to command an officer on full pay; and such an assumption on the part of colonel Arthur was contrary to the rules of the service. Let the House remember, that colonel Bradley was in that situation, that had he not attempted to obtain the command of the troops, he was liable to have been brought to a court martial for having obeyed those very orders which he was now accused of violating. It was a matter of the last importance, in a country like this, where there were 15,000 officers on full and half pay, that these points should be fully ascertained; for if it were to be admitted, that an officer on half-pay could assume the command of those who were on full pay, it would open the door to great disputes and the utmost inconvenience. It appeared to him, therefore, that the petitioner was well grounded in his complaints; but then it was alleged, that colonel Arthur had in his possession a commission from general Fuller, the commanding officer of the station; but the petitioner appealed to the army at large to say whether they had ever heard of such a commission; and even if it had been granted, that it could never have been valid, unless published to the army. Unless it had been published, he had no right to be censured, for having in ignorance of its existence, conformed to the rules of the service. But colonel Bradley went further, and declared, that although sir H. Torrens, and sir H. Taylor swore on the trial to the validity of the commission, he was now prepared with the most unquestionable evidence to prove that such a commission was not in existence at the time when colonel Arthur assumed the command; and he exclaimed against the manifest injustice of having been injured by an ex post facto deed, which was manufactured for the purpose of preventing him from obtaining that verdict to which he was entitled. Whether sir H. Torrens did or did not swear that at the trial which was not founded in fact, it was not for him to give an opinion; he only stated the allegations of the petitioner. Having been thus defeated in his appeal to the laws of his country for redress, and having gone through some other forms which he did not understand, he had only further to add, although he had not entered fully into the details of this transaction, that he had stated substan-

1103
tially the petitioner's case, and quite enough, in his judgment, to warrant him in approaching that House as the only place that could afford him protection against the abuse of that power which the constitution had placed in his majesty's hands. With such a standing army in the country, it was a great hardship that there should be placed the power, at the wish and pleasure of one man of hurling a meritorious officer down from the station to which he had ascended, after years of arduous service and irreproachable conduct, without court-martial, or any inquiry-whatever, which might have the effect, if; not to re-establish him in his rank, at least to defend his honour against unmerited charges. Colonel Bradley after twenty years service eighteen of which were spent in a tropical climate, had his fortunes ruined and his honour disgraced, and therefore it was, he appealed to the parliament of his country. There were some technicalities in his case into which he had not entered, and the more particularly, as an hon. and learned friend below him who had conducted the cause, was intimately acquainted with all the circumstances, and would probably explain them better than he could—He, therefore, concluded in the words of the petitioner: "he humbly but earnestly implores your honourable House, as the protectors of the rights of individuals, and the vigilant and zealous guardians over the control of all public departments, to take the premises into your most serious consideration, in order that justice, too long withheld, may be rendered to an innocent individual, whom even his oppressors admit to be a meritorious officer." He now begged leave to bring up the petition.
Mr. Butterworthdefended the character of colonel Arthur, than whom no man in the service bore a higher character. As to the dispute between him and the petitioner, he was enabled to assure the House that colonel Arthur had been regularly continued in his command, and that it was in his own defence that he arrested colonel Bradley, whose conduct in assuming the command had well nigh led to an insurrection in the colony. Colonel Bradley had had a verdict of 100 l. but the ground of that was, that he had been kept in arrest after he had lost his commission.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was desirous to make a few remarks upon the petition which had been just presented, containing charges the most insupportable
1104
—namely, that a certain commission had been produced on his trial, which commission was forged, and stating that certain high persons were guilty of perjury. The hon. member opposite had afforded him an opportunity of seeing the petition; and, although he had not detailed the circumstances, he was enabled to see the character of the petition; and he would put it to the House whether a petition, containing such unfounded charges, ought to be received. Now what were the circumstances of the case? In 1814, colonel Arthur was appointed civil superintendent of Honduras, and general Fuller was governor of the Jamaica station. In 1817 an order was issued, stating that the civil superintendent should command the troops. Under these circumstances it was that colonel Bradley took upon himself to say that he had the right to command; although it was obvious that colonel Arthur had never commanded in consequence of his regimental rank; for, in fact, his regiment never was in that colony. His authority to command was founded upon a commission from gen. Fuller, and the orders issued in this country; how then did colonel Bradley conduct himself? That gentleman insisted, that he ought to be commander of the troops, and actually issued garrison orders. Colonel Arthur expostulated with him, and sent captain Noel to him, telling him it was better that nothing should be done until they had received instructions from the authorities at home. What was colonel Bradley's reply? "I have submitted to this too long. I shall have nothing to do with colonel Arthur. I will be trifled with no longer." Why, then, under these circumstances, colonel Arthur had no other course to pursue. Now, to shew the accuracy of the statement of colonel Bradley: he stated that he had been imprisoned for ten months, whereas his learned friend opposite who had conducted the cause of the Petitioner, stated on the trial, that he had a document to prove, that colonel Bradley had been in close arrest for two months. It was therefore most material that this case should not be misrepresented, as it was in the petition. Now for another instance. Colonel Bradley says, he had been dismissed from the army in consequence of the misstatements of colonel Arthur; but he held in his hand the document by which colonel Bradley was dismissed by his royal highness the commander-in-chief, and that document stated,

1105
that the resolution of dismissing him had been founded on the inconsistency and impropriety of his conduct, as demonstrated by his own representations. Again: the petitioner states, that sir H. Torrens swore on the trial to the validity of a particular commission, whereas sir H. Torrens said nothing at all about the matter. And yet the petitioner states, not only that this commission was forged, but forged for the base purpose of defeating the administration of justice. There was another charge against sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor; namely, that they had deposed to the existence of certain general orders which never were in being. Now, the fact was this:—In answer to a question from the chief-justice, sir H. Torrens said, that certain garrison orders had been issued, conferring this authority on colonel Arthur. Now this order was merely applicable to the civil superintendent, although in the course of the evidence, it was called a general order, not in a military sense, but general only as applicable to the colony. He therefore submitted to the House, that it was not competent to an individual, after having appealed to a court of justice, and finding the decision on the main point of the case against him, to come to that House and scatter those unfounded imputations. The only question at the trial was whether the authority to command the troops at Honduras was suspended by the reduction of the regiment to which the commander belonged? And, at the trial, neither in the evidence or depositions was such a principle admitted. In fact, the depositions of general Conran put the question beyond all doubt, that colonel Arthur had the just and proper command of the garrison. His hon. and learned friend opposite had applied for a new trial, and had argued the case with great ability, learning, and perseverance, and the court decided, and thereby confirmed the judgment at Nisi Prius, that the reduction of colonel Arthur's regiment had nothing to do with his military command. If the petitioner had confined himself to complaints, he should have felt it unnecessary to have spoken on the subject; but when he states that a verdict was obtained by fraud and perjury, and charges those who conducted that suit with a desire to pervert the ends of justice, he thought the House ought to pause before they received a petition containing such gross charges, or allow themselves to be made a medium of circulating throughout the country the most unwar-
1106
rantable reflections on individuals of the highest character in the country. Upon these grounds it was, that, although he should hot oppose the bringing up the petition, he should object to any further step with regard to it.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the reply of the Attorney-general consisted rather of an attack on colonel Bradley, than of an exculpation of those who were affected by the charges contained in the petition. Although colonel Bradley might have mixed up with his case circumstances which had been as well omitted, yet that was not the main point of the case. He had no doubt colonel Bradley was in error, in supposing that sir H. Torrens, and sir H. Taylor would decend to the acts imputed to them; but if colonel Arthur was actually in possession of the commission, as he stated, for what possible object could he conceal it? Why allow colonel Bradley to resort to measures which might have led to insurrection in the colony, when he had a commission in his pocket, which, if colonel Bradley had common sense, must have immediately satisfied him? Colonel Bradley applied personally, and wrote officially, to colonel Arthur, calling upon him to state his right to retain the command, but no authority was produced, and he therefore thought colonel Bradley had reason to complain of extreme hardship. With respect to the power of dismal from the army without court martial, that was a question on which his opinions were already known, and he should not, therefore go into it: but if it were a power to be exercised at all, it was one so fearful and extensive, that it ought to be under the control of the utmost caution. Here was an individual who had long and faithfully served his country, and was dismissed without an opportunity of having the charges investigated. It was one of the complaints of colonel Bradley, that up to this hour he had never seen the charges which had been preferred against him. Another of his difficulties was, that government had undertaken the defence of colonel Arthur; and by appointing him to a foreign station, had relieved him from the payment of costs and damages. He therefore hoped, that the Attorney-general would not object to the allowing the petition to be printed, lest, thereby, the injustice and oppression which it imputed might go unredressed.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that if the pe-

1107
tition had been confined to the mere complaints of the petitioner, he should not rise to oppose its reception; nor should he oppose its being read and printed, did it not contain charges the most unfounded against two men of as high honour as any in the country; namely, sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor—which were libels so gross as to compel him to oppose any motion for the printing of the petition. Now, what does colonel Bradley expect the House to do? That gentleman appealed to a court of justice, for the purpose of shewing that his conduct was justified by law, and in that appeal he failed—he appealed again, and was again unsuccessful; and he was. therefore warranted in saying, that colonel Bradley had no legal ground of complaint. With respect to his military conduct, the case was quite clear. Colonel Bradley had been guilty of gross insubordination, amounting almost to mutiny; and in consequence of his conduct he was dismissed from the army—not on the representation of colonel Arthur, but on the consideration and investigation of his own statements, as compared with those of colonel Arthur. Colonel Bradley was quite mistaken in supposing that the disbandment of colonel Arthur's regiment produced any alteration in his military authority. As his regiment had never been in that colony, it was impossible he should ever have command by virtue of his regimental rank; but it did so happen, that even if there had been any doubt about it, the question was decided by actual circumstances. Colonel Arthur had first belonged to the 7th West-India regiment, which was reduced in 1816, and that officer was put on half-pay. Now, did the reduction of his regiment affect his military command? No such thing. He continued to command the garrison just the same as when he was on full pay. He therefore stated, that previous circumstances had decided the question, as to whether the being on half-pay affected the command of the colony. But it was said, that colonel Massey had exercised the military command after colonel Arthur had been placed on half-pay. Now, this was disproved by the returns in the Commander-in-chief's office; so that colonel Bradley was mistaken in all his facts. How was an officer to act in a distant colony? Colonel Arthur offered to transmit to the Horse-guards any communications which colonel Bradley might think

1108
necessary. But colonel Bradley was guilty of the grossest insubordination; and if colonel Arthur had not acted in the manner he had done he would have proved himself unfit for the situation in which he was placed, and have subjected himself to the serious displeasure of the commander-in-chief. It was therefore clear, that colonel Bradley having been guilty of this kind of insubordination, deserved to be dismissed from the service. But he would also state, that he had been treated with great indulgence; for, although he had been removed from the army, he was permitted to sell his majority, having only purchased his ensigncy and company; and, when colonel Bradley preferred those charges against sir H. Torrens, it was only fit to state, that it was on the personal recommendation of sir H. Torrens that colonel Bradley was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel; so that he was guilty of the greatest ingratitude in placing on the table charges against sir H. Torrens so utterly ungrounded. With respect to his own conduct in the transaction, he had felt it his duty to recommend that the case of colonel Arthur should be conducted at the public expense, and he should have been guilty of a dereliction of duty if he had not done so. It would be hard indeed, if, when an officer had discharged the duty he owed his country, and was dragged into a court of justice, he should be subjected to all the expense and inconvenience; but, at the same time, he must add, that it was no part of his instructions to pay the expenses attendant on the extension of the imprisonment of colonel Bradley beyond its proper period. The ground upon which the court had directed a verdict in favour of colonel Bradley was, that he should have been released on the first intimation of his being placed on half-pay. However, it was fair to state, that the intimation received by colonel Arthur was not that colonel Bradley had been put on half-pay, but that it was intended to do so. According to the usual course, the communication of the fact must have been made by Jamaica, so that necessarily an interval must have elapsed between communicating the intention and carrying it into execution. Upon these grounds, then, first, that colonel Bradley asks that which the House could not grant; and that it was improper that the House of Commons should be made instrumental in circulating unfounded calumnies he must

1109
give his opposition to the bringing up this petition.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the circumstances which had been adverted to by his hon. and learned friend opposite, namely, that he had been professionally engaged in the cause, induced him to come forward to avoid any unjust inferences being drawn from his silence. He had always considered it expedient that professional men should abstain from interfering in that House on questions in which they had been professionally engaged; and the reasons for such a course were too obvious to require explanation. These remarks would not apply to his hon. and learned friend opposite, who stood in the capacity of a public officer, and as such was bound to conduct proceedings of this nature. As the court had decided in a particular manner, and as that decision was final, he was not at liberty to comment upon it; but he had always understood, from the very beginning of this cause, that the highest imputation against colonel Bradley was an error of judgment. With respect to the charges preferred by the petitioner against certain honourable persons, he would fain hope the House would pause before they adopted, as a principle, that no charge was to be printed amongst their votes which happened to reflect upon high individuals. He must say here, that with respect to the charges preferred against these honourable persons, he knew nothing at all about them; but having read the petition, he must differ with his hon. and learned friend in supposing that there was any thing in it personally offensive to the gentleman alluded to. All the petition did was to accuse some person of having forged a certain commission; colonel Arthur not having produced that commission when he was repeatedly called upon to do so. He could not recognize the principle, that the House had a right to refuse a petition, because it contained charges against individuals, how high so ever their rank or station. If the petition, then, ought to be received, the question of printing followed the same rule. It was a matter of course, that the votes should be printed for the use of the members; and, as to publicity, the rule was well known, that a person who published any statement contained in a petition was liable to punishment, as in the case of libel.
Mr. Secretary Peelcontended, that the
1110
House ought to look with a great deal of hesitation at the complaint of any petitioner whose case had been already decided, after a long and impartial inquiry in a court of law; and with still greater scruple, when that person came forward and accused persons of such high honour and distinguished character as sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor, of what could only be called gross perjury. For he said, in precise terms, that no such general order ever existed, as that to which sir H. Torrens actually swore in a court of law to have been issued. Was it probable, that such a man as sir H. Torrens would perjure himself in the manner which the petitioner alleged? Or ought they, with any regard to justice, or to the character of the individual so charged, to permit such an accusation to be publicly dispersed by their authority It was, undoubtedly, the right of every subject to present what he considered his grievances to the consideration and compassion of that House; and on that ground he would not object to the petition being laid on the table. But he felt it due to the character of the general officers accused by the petitioner, that they should leave him to seek his remedy, if he could prove his assertions, in a court of law, and he would therefore oppose any motion for the petition being printed.
The petition was then brought up.
Mr. Humeentered into a detail of the occurrences mentioned in the petition, and contended, that there was one plain and obvious course for colonel Arthur to have pursued, namely, to produce the commission, if he really possessed it: that would have prevented all the evils which followed, and which were the more dangerous, and the more to have been avoided, when they knew that the colony was almost in a state of insurrection. All complaints were charges of one kind or other, and involved more or less the character of those who were the subject of them. He knew not, indeed, how justice could be done without them; but, as the right hon. gentleman seemed to have so great an objection to those passages which affected the conduct of sir H. Torrens, he would, although he wished to move that it be printed, in the hope that some member might feel it right to take measures for having it referred to a committee, now consent to withdraw it altogether.
The petition was accordingly withdrawn.

MR. BUCKINGHAM—LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN INDIA COMMITTEE.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the Select Committee appointed to examine into the matters alleged in this gentleman's petition be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he might, with great propriety, move that the order which the House had made on a former evening On this subject should now be rescinded; and the ground upon which he should be justified, in doing so was, that there had been no notice of the motion which the noble lord had carried. He had, at first, resolved to do so, but he had since abandoned his intention; and he would tell the House why: it was, because the case was one in which an individual complained of having suffered great hardship. If it had been of a different description he should certainly have acted upon his original resolution. The noble lord communicated to him, and to another gentleman on his side of the House, his intention of presenting a petition; but he had given no intimation whatever that he purposed to follow it up by a motion; and certainly he could not have imagined the noble lord intended to make such a motion as that which had been proposed. Knowing, as he did, the noble lord's usual courtesy in all matters which he brought before the House, he should not have believed it if he had been told that any such proceeding would have been adopted by him. He did not now rise to oppose the motion; but as the noble lord, in forming a committee of sixteen, had taken only five members from the ministerial side of the House, the other eleven being selected from the opposite benches, he should object to the addition of any more names to the committee.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was sure his noble friend had no intention of taking the House by surprise. He had not requested him to attend, nor, as he believed, many other gentlemen who were usually in the habit of acting with him.
Lord Miltonsaid, he supposed the reason of the right hon. gentleman's complaint was, that no Treasury notes had been issued on the occasion.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that so far from there having been any intention on the part of his noble friend to take the House by surprise, he had himself requested his noble friend to put off the motion. He bad no reason for doing so, but that he
1112
thought any other occasion would be just as favourable to its success as that on which it was made. He could not sufficiently express his surprise at the intention which the right hon. gentleman avowed. If he had carried it into execution, what, he asked, would be the inference of the country? The most ardent reformer that ever lived would not wish that such a picture should be held up to the country of the state of the representation—that because the benches on the right hon. gentleman's side of the House were not so well filled as usual, any motion which happened to be made at that time was afterwards to be rescinded. Would it be openly insisted, that if by an accident—a rare one, it must be confessed—they, on that side of the House, succeeded in carrying a question, it was afterwards to be decided over again, at an opportunity which ministers might think more favourable? They should remember, that the same thing might, if the example were once set, be practised on that side of the House. He did not see why this question differed from any other, or why it required any more notice than the corn question, which had been so lately proposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his right hon. friend had been misunderstood. Undoubtedly, the rules of the House were not made for the convenience of one side or the other; and he believed that, if the course now complained of were adopted on that side of the House, gentlemen opposite would complain of it bitterly, and with great justice. He must confess he was surprised that the noble lord should have made this motion without notice. He was himself on his way to the House on the evening on which it had been made, but hearing that there was nothing before the House but petitions, he was ashamed to say he turned back.
Mr. Calcraftprotested he had neither had, nor heard of, any such notice as that about which the right hon. gentleman had spoken; and yet he had voted on the former evening with his noble friend; and did not regret that he had done so. As to the objections that had been taken to the noble lord's mode of proceeding in. this case, the whole of the matter was, that the right hon. gentleman was very sore. He did not like to be beaten; and defeat was yet too new a visitation for him to be callous to it. For his own part, he could not agree with those who thought that a formal notice ought always to be

1113
given, preparatory to bringing forward a motion. Experience showed, that it was only by sudden movements that members on his side of the House could defeat their much more powerful antagonists. Whenever these formal notices were given, and they had what was technically called a "field-day" of discussion, they were sure to be overwhelmed. However in-convenient the course complained of might be, he could not consent to relinquish, upon all occasions, the exercise of that wholesome privilege, which every member had the power to exercise, of propounding motions without notice.
Mr. Broughamwas inclined to think that the motion of his noble friend, on a former evening, had been carried against ministers, not quite so much by surprise as some hon. members seemed to imagine. The debate on that occasion was undoubtedly not a very short one. There had been a great deal of discussion upon it. If he recollected rightly, an hon. and learned friend, from Doctors' Commons (Dr. Phillimore) addressed the House at considerable length, and no doubt in a manner very profitable to those whom he addressed; but the length of that address was certainly not the less profitable to the division which subsequently took place. For during his learned friend's exercitation, a great many members came down, who, not being scared like the Chancellor of the Exchequer at hearing that the debate was only about a petition, did not turn back, but took their places in time to vote with his majesty's ministers. And, by a singular coincidence it happened, that during precisely the same period, and while his learned friend was stating his view of the question, a great many gentlemen on his (Mr. B.'s) side of the House left it. The vote was not, therefore, altogether so mere a matter of accident as it had been described to be. The fact was, that a very general impression, in the case of Mr. Buckingham, had gone abroad—and a very strong one too— that, somehow or other, by the conduct of the East India Company, that gentle-man had been very hardly used.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he thought he had a right to complain that the noble lord had not given any notice that he intended to move for a select committee. He had certainly stated, that he would bring the petition under the consideration of the House, but he did not even hint that he would follow up that proceeding with a
1114
motion for a select committee. And he for one must say, that on hearing the speech which the noble lord delivered on the petition being presented, he had no idea that the noble lord meant to call for a select committee. He might have been imprudent in the speech he had made, but he must say, that in addressing the House on that occasion, he was not actuated by any consideration connected with the division which afterwards took place. It arose entirely from his decided opinion that the whole of this proceeding did not originate in any feeling of compassion for Mr. Buckingham, but from a desire to carry on indirectly, an attack upon the memory of the late Mr. Adam — an individual, who, in his conscientious opinion, he believed to be one of the most valuable servants the Company had had for a long time. Unfortunately for the Company, death had closed the career of that distinguished individual. He was not there to defend himself; and he thought it but fair to say thus much in justification of that gentleman's character.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that if the motion in question had been introduced for the purpose of levelling an attack against the lamented individual whose name had been mentioned, or if he thought that by possibility it could lead to such an attack, he would have been the last man to have given it his support.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he undoubtedly never thought that the noble lord or his learned friend would make themselves parties to such an attack, but he knew that many persons, in bringing forward this question, had mixed up the character of Mr. Adam with it, in a most unjustifiable manner.
Lord J. Russelldefended the course he had taken on a former evening. The gentlemen around him had no more notice of what he meant to do than the gentleman opposite had. And when he stated that he would introduce the petition, he did not give notice of what he would afterwards do, because he wished to leave it open to himself to pursue that course which might, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, appear to be necessary. He considered the course which he had adopted to be as regular as any other that could be pointed out. He conceived that he, or any other member, was competent to bring forward the motion, without giving notice

1115
to the House. He saw no reason why he should adopt a course of proceeding which would enable ministers to issue their summons to the individuals in that House who were the representatives of Downing-street, calling on them to give their vote on a question, the merits of which they had not heard discussed. He thought it was always better to have a question decided by those who had listened to the discussion (which was the case in this instance), than by those who had not. As to the subject itself, it had long been before the public: it had been agitated in various ways, and was, therefore, a question of which no man could be completely ignorant. The learned gentleman who had just sat down had asserted, that these attempts to procure redress were in reality brought forward to degrade the character of Mr. Adam. He, for one, must solemnly disclaim any such intention. Until he perfectly understood the nature of the case, he had felt unwilling, from his knowledge of the family of Mr. Adam, and from the character which that gentleman bore in India, to have any thing to do with it. But when he at length found, that Mr. Buckingham had been refused redress in every quarter to which he had applied, he thought that no consideration of the family connexion of any individual ought to prevent him from bringing forward a case, which appeared to him to be one of severe individual hardship. He considered that it was his privilege to bring forward the motion in question without notice. He was not obliged to give the Treasury an opportunity to send forth their notices, and to bring down their regular pack to vote on the occasion.
Mr. Humesaid, that Mr. Adam's character or conduct had nothing to do with this petition. Mr. Buckingham complained of the destruction of his property, which had taken place after Mr. Adam had left the government, and when he was absent for the benefit of his health. The sending Mr. Buckingham from India by Mr. Adam, and the subsequent destruction of his property under the government of lord Amherst, were two very distinct questions.
Mr. Astellsaid, that the honorable gentleman wished to persuade the House, that the case of Mr. Buckingham, as it had been brought before them, applied only to the destruction of his property subsequently to his leaving India;
1116
but he begged leave to say, that the great grievance of Mr. Buckingham, and that which formed the principal feature of his complaint, was his removal from India, which was set forth at large in his petition. That removal had been rendered necessary by his own conduct, and the conduct of the writers in his paper, who were continually vilifying government. The house ought not, therefore, to be led away by the partial statements of the hon. gentleman. As Mr. Adam's name had been mentioned, he would take that opportunity—as he would seize every opportunity that occurred—to do that individual justice. He would say of him, that a more able, zealous, or upright servant of the East India Company never lived. The loss of that excellent man could not be easily repaired; and he must declare, that the name of Mr. Adam had been most unjustly coupled with these proceedings.
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that Mr. Buckingham having appealed to the privy council, and that body having decided against his appeal, he thought it a most unusual course to bring the subject before parliament. In common fairness, a notice of the noble lord's intention to move for a select committee ought to have been given; because he believed many individuals would have voted against the motion, had they been aware that it was a matter between Mr. Buckingham and the East India Company on which the privy council had adjudicated.
The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of lord John Russell, Mr. Abercromby and sir C. Forbes were added to the committee. Mr. Wynn then moved that Mr. Stuart, colonel Baillie, Mr. VV. Peel, sir E. H. East, Mr. Ross, lord G. Somerset, Mr. Wellesley, and colonel Lushington, be added to the committee.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the parties now proposed were either in office, or connected with the East India Company; whereas, when the committee were appointed the other night, he believed the names were taken alternately from both sides of the House.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that there were on the committee which was appointed on Tuesday evening, five persons, who were either commissioners of the Board of Control, or East India directors,—individuals who were certain to vote against Mr. Buckingham's claim. Of the other members of the committee, a considerable

1117
portion of them were gentlemen who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and who were in favour of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had, however, introduced the names of a number of persons, who had either places under the Crown, or who were connected with the East India Company. This, he contended, was not fair. He was sure that the right hon. gentleman's ancestor, Mr. Speaker Williams, did he preside in the Chair, would be ashamed of a committee thus partially selected.
Mr. Peelwas of opinion, that Mr. Speaker Williams would rather be ashamed of the manner in which the committee was selected on Tuesday last, than of the addition which it was now proposed to make to it. A noble lord had stated, that the members of the committee had been taken alternately from both sides of the House. Now, out of sixteen names, ten had been taken from the opposite side of the House; and one of the remaining six had made a speech in favour of Mr. Buckingham. Two names of gentlemen who were favourable, he believed, to this claim, had since been added to the list; so that there was a balance of 13 against 5.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. gentleman should allow others to act on the principle which he and his friends had adopted in forming the committee, in the early part of the session, on the Scotch and Irish currency. On that occasion, a committee of twenty-one persons had been appointed, three only of whom could speak the sentiments of the people of Scotland with respect to the currency question; while the other members of the committee were all ready to destroy the present circulation of Scotland. There was the chancellor of the Exchequer decidedly in favour of an alteration. Mr. Peel also in favour of it.
Mr. Peel.—I never said any thing about it.
Mr. Hume.—I beg to state my recollection of the matter; having, on the very day, noted the circumstance, as proving this to be the most partial list that was ever drawn up.
Mr. Peel.—I did not open my lips on the subject.
Mr. Humeproceeded to contend, that the list of the committee appointed to consider Mr. Buckingham's petition was not a partial one. The list was put into the noble lord's hand partly written, and the success of his motion was as little
1118
expected by the noble lord as it was by him. Therefore, there could have been no premeditation. The proposition now made, by which the Board of Control and the Court of Directors would have an opportunity of deciding on the case of this individual, was absolutely ridiculous. It was completely depriving Mr. Buckingham of any chance of success.
Mr. Peelsaid, that undoubtedly he had a strong opinion on the subject of Scotch currency. He thought it was right to extend to Scotland the system which prevailed in this country. But, when the motion for a committee was made by his right hon. friend, he did not say a word on the subject; so, it was impossible that the hon. member could have taken any note on the subject. When the hon. member said there were but three members connected with Scotland appointed on that committee, he was at a loss to know on what principle it was that he formed his calculation. He, however, could say very little for the correctness of the hon. member's estimate. He found on that committee, besides those whom the hon. member had mentioned, the lord Advocate, lord F. Gower, who could not be said to have no interest in the question, and Mr. W. Gordon; and when the hon. member for Aberdeen proposed Mr. W. Gordon, he ought to recollect that the proposition was at once agreed to.
Mr. Trantsaid, in answer to the observation which had been made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), that he went into the committee without any bias on his mind. He was perfectly open to conviction. He scorned the imputation of going into a committee of inquiry with his mind made up to a particular decision.
Mr. Peelsaid, he had not insinuated that the hon. member had any undue bias on his mind. He had merely observed, that the hon. member had spoken and voted in favour of the motion.
Mr. Scarlettobserved, that if the object of this committee was fair inquiry, it certainly ought not to be filled up by those who had voted against such inquiry.
The names proposed by Mr. Wynn were then added to the committee.

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Humerose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal so much of the 6th of Geo. IV. cap. 107, as relates to the Exportation of Tools and Utensils." He contended, that the neces-

1119
sity of allowing the exportation of machinery had been fully substantiated by the evidence given before the committee on that subject. It was proved, that, if, the exportation were permitted, this country would find a market for machinery throughout a very large portion of the world. By adopting a contrary system, they compelled other states to create machinery for themselves, instead of having recourse to Great Britain. But, though the act, part of which he wished to have repealed, forbad the exportation of machinery of particular kinds, it permitted steam-engines, and other articles intimately connected with machinery, to be sent abroad. His object was, to give employment, as far as possible, to a numerous class of workmen—an object of great importance, when it was considered that one portion of our population was in a state approaching to starvation. The laws of the country prevented many persons from being employed in the formation of machines at the present moment, while the masters admitted that they could procure foreign orders to almost any amount, if they dared to take them. There was, he knew, a prejudice against sending out machinery; but it was dying away fast. A petition had been presented to the House on this subject, which was worthy of consideration. It was there stated, that in consequence of these laws, many individuals were obliged to depend on the poor-rates of the parish where they resided, or to seek for employment in other countries. At the present moment, he believed strong inducements were held out to English workmen to go abroad for the purpose of making machines. Now, he conceived it would be more wise to send the machines abroad, and to keep the workmen at home. He had some time since called on the President of the Board of Control to bring in a bill for that purpose. At that time, the right hon. gentleman was not aware of the situation to which the manufacturing classes were on the point of being reduced; for, if he had, he certainly would have made every exertion to have the law repealed. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Huskissonapprehended, that if leave were given to export every species of machinery, without discrimination, considerable mischief must ensue. In some cases, the exportation of machinery had been allowed; namely, in those cases
1120
where the framers of machinery did not conceive that their interests could be prejudiced by permitting exportation. There might be, and he feared there was, a number of ingenious artisans out of employ; but, in setting on foot a measure of this kind for their relief, the House should first know how far it was likely to affect the interests of those by whom they were ordinarily employed. He would not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill; but, before it proceeded further, it would be necessary that the fact of such a measure having been introduced should be known throughout the country, in order that they might be put in possession of the feelings of those who were most interested in its provisions. If, on that examination, it should appear that any of the great interests to which he had alluded were likely to be prejudiced, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the measure.
Mr. Birchdeprecated the introduction of any such measure at the present moment; because it must necessarily produce a most unpleasant feeling in the country. It would be much better to wait until the next session of parliament. As to the committee, to which the hon. mover had alluded, he must say, that the whole of the evidence given before it was decidedly ex-parte.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that whatever opinion might be entertained of the merits of this question, the present moment was the most unfavourable that could be selected for agitating it. The inquiry which this subject had undergone was the most defective that could be imagined. There had been no evidence on the subject from Lancashire, Glasgow, Birmingham, or from several other places in which this manufacture was carried on. The House had not heard the opinions of Bolton and Watt, and other eminent scientific men engaged in the trade; but from the information which had reached him on the subject, he was led to believe, that the opinions of those gentlemen were not favourable to an unlimited exportation of machinery. A petition was last year presented from Nottingham, full of information on this subject, and to that petition he should wish to refer the hon. member. He would admit, that in time copies of our machines would find their way into foreign countries; but all those hitherto sent there were imperfect, and to repair them workmen were required from this

1121
country. It would take a long time to have such machines equal to ours, unless there was allowed a general export of machinery; and if that were once to take place, he believed that a great portion of our industry and capital would follow.
Mr. Philipssaid, that if we had no means of employing the manufacturers of machines at home, it would be but common justice to allow them to manufacture for foreign countries. The export of machinery would have the effect not only of giving employment to many of the manufacturers, but would also enable many persons in the trade, who now had machines unemployed, to dispose of them to advantage to other countries. With respect to the question then before the House, he thought that on the principle of free trade, which was carried into so many other branches of our commerce, the export of machinery would not have an injurious tendency; but, under all the circumstances of the present time, it was his opinion that it would be better to refer the whole subject to a committee next session.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, it would be hopeless to attempt to carry any measure into effect on this subject in the present session.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought that a dispassionate consideration of the subject could not be expected at the present period. The hon. member had wished for the opinions of practical men on this subject; but he would ask, whether it would be proper to withdraw practical man from other and more important business at this period? If he were an advocate for the measure proposed by the hon. member, he thought he should best promote the object in view, by requesting him to postpone it.
Captain Maberlyexpressed a hope, that under the circumstances stated, the hon. member would not press his motion at present.
Mr. Humesaid, he had brought forward the motion in consequence of the petitions which had been presented to the House from the manufacturers of machines, complaining of being out of employment, and praying for relief. He did hope, that the principle which he advocated would at last be adopted; but as some hon. members thought the discussion of the subject would increase irritation in the minds of the manufacturers, and as he had no wish to add to that which already existed, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, he would not detain the House by a repetition of the arguments that bad been urged against the bill; but his opinions as to its injustice and impolicy were unchanged, and he therefore should take the sense of the House upon the second reading. He objected to it chiefly as a measure totally uncalled for by present circumstances. Though he thought that, generally speaking, it was a bad system to adopt, to legislate according to the feelings of people out of doors, which the hon. member for Aberdeen had just professed his willingness to do with regard to his machinery, as he considered it to be the duty of that House the rather to lead public opinion than to follow it; yet, as the doctrine of public feeling had been seconded by the president of the Board of Trade, and by the secretary for the Home Department, he should think himself justified in adopting the same line of argument. The first class which, to a man, were opposed to the measure, were the corn-dealers,—a class with which he did not generally sympathise. A great excitement had been created amongst that class, on account of the attacks which had been made on their property; but that body could meet and express their opinion and feelings simultaneously, as they all met at the corn market; but not so the corn growers, who were diffused throughout the country without any means of communication. If, therefore, he felt for the corn-dealers, he felt doubly for the corn-growers; as the present measure militated principally against their interest. There were 400,000 quarters of bonded corn to be introduced into the market, and 500,000 quarters to be imported; and all this at a time when it was known that there was abundance of corn in the granaries of the country. He denied that the corn had been kept back in the hopes that there would be a scarcity; though he would admit that it was reserved from the prospect of a better market. If ministers were to have the discretion they asked for, he did not wish them to state the price at which foreign corn was to be imported; he would rather that they did not: the measure was theirs, and it was right that they should take all the responsibility, if

1123
they took any. He, therefore, was glad that they had said nothing regarding either the price or the duty.
Sir W. W. Wynnsaid, that at the first introduction of this measure he was not disposed to view it in a favourable light; but, after the best consideration he had been enabled to give it, he thought the decision which the House had come to on the subject was highly creditable to it, and showed the feeling which it entertained for the distresses of the country. He believed that the fears of many hon. members were unfounded, as to the quantity of corn now in bond. It had been stated at 400,000 quarters; but he had reason to think that it did not exceed 269,000 quarters. Peeling that the measure was not likely to be productive of the injury which some hon. members anticipated, he would vote for the second reading; but he would reserve himself as to the details of the measure, until it should be in the committee.
Colonel Woodregretted that the hon. baronet had determined to take the sense of the House on this measure; for he thought the general question lost much in the opinion of the country by those frequent divisions. If, however, the hon. baronet pressed it to a division, he would vote for the second reading. He would not do so because he approved of the bill as a whole. And here he would observe, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs on a former evening, that he would not be one of his "compurgators" in bearing him out as to the necessity of this measure. He would, however, go to a committee, and he would there propose that 65 s. be the price at which foreign corn should be imported, with a duty. This he thought would satisfy the country, and be a most important alteration in the Corn-laws. He would reserve his arguments on this point until he went into the committee, when he hoped he should be able to persuade the committee of the advantage of such a regulation. Some hon. members had wished to have a free trade with a fixed duty, but he thought such a step extremely objectionable; for no fixed duty ought to be allowed to continue at a scarcity price. It would therefore be idle to suppose that a fixed duty would settle the question for ever. When a scarcity arose, they would have to come to parliament again to alter that fixed duty. But it was said, that if the ports were opened
1124
at a fixed duty, no scarcity could arise. He had read Mr. Jacob's report on the subject of foreign supply, and he found that the utmost we could now expect from the Baltic would be 500,000 quarters. The hon. member went on to contend, that a graduated scale would also be insufficient. The only safe mode would be the present law modified, by reducing the import duty as low as possible, consistently with the state of the country.
Mr. Bankessaid that the measure, as it now stood, was different from that which had been first introduced. The alterations made were certainly improvements; for had the first proposition been carried, to open the ports at a duty of 12 s., there was no doubt, whatever hon. gentlemen might say to the contrary, that that would continue to be the duty, whenever the question might be discussed hereafter. But, notwithstanding the alterations that had been made, he still thought the question extremely objectionable. His first objection was, that the agitation of the Corn-laws was not at all necessary at the present moment. The introduction of the measure at this time showed a great inconsistency on the part of ministers. What, he would ask, had occurred since the 18th of April, when the House came to a decision on the question? What did ministers expect from this measure? In what degree did they expect that the liberation of the bonded corn would lower the price of the markets? Was it 84 s, or 10 s. per quarter? If it were lowered 10 s or even 20 s. per quarter, would it afford any relief to the manufacturing districts? If it would not, how could ministers lend themselves to a delusion so perilous as the present was in every respect? Did they not see that those who were without money, and without employment could not buy corn, even at the most reduced rates? Would they tell him how those unfortunate individuals could be benefitted by the present measures? Let them answer this question plainly, and not talk to him about such solemn nonsense as "moral effect." Another great objection which he had to this plan was the time at which it was proposed, and the mode in which it was to operate as relief. "Probitas laudatur et alget" was an observation of some antiquity, but one which had been completely verified in the present instance. Whilst the people were quiet, no aid had been administered to their distresses; but, as soon as they began to be riotous, measures were devised

1125
for their immediate relief. On these grounds he retained all the objections which he had originally felt to this proposition. He gave credit to ministers for the alterations which they had made in it; but they were not such as to reconcile him to it, for he was convinced that whatever was founded in deception and delusion must end in frustration and disappointment. He should therefore conclude by moving as an amendment, "That this bill be read a second time this day month."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was a great satisfaction to him to know, that though many gentlemen had felt warmly in the discussions which had recently taken place on this measure, all of them had abstained from examining it with any undue degree of heat and violence. He trusted that they would still preserve the same moderation which had hitherto guided them, and that whatever exasperation might prevail elsewhere, none would be perceived within the walls of that House. He was anxious to make a few remarks on this question, because the greater part of what he had hitherto heard, referred not so much to the question itself, as to the course which government had pursued upon it, and the moment at which it had brought it forward. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had told the House, that he had four objections to it. The first of them was, that government had acted with inconsistency in proposing the measure at all. Now, that might be a good argument as against the government; but, if the measure were right, it was no argument against the measure. He asserted, however, that government had not acted inconsistently. It was true, that when his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was asked, early in the session, if it was the intention of his majesty's government to bring forward a general revision of the Corn-laws, his answer was in the negative. The reason was, that the last session of a parliament was a most unfit time for the consideration of a subject of so much importance. The little by-battles that had occurred on the presenting of the several petitions on the subject sufficiently showed the spirit in which the general discussion would have been carried on. But, although his majesty's government thought it inexpedient to enter on the revision of the whole system of the Corn-laws, it by no means followed that it was inconsistent on their part, when any necessity called upon them
1126

to do so, to propose a temporary suspension of the laws, such as that under consideration. It had been said, that it would have been better if ministers had allowed things to take their chance, and if, instead of a previous application to parliament, they had, in the event of unfavourable circumstances, resorted to what he was astonished to hear called the "royal prerogative." He confessed he thought that honourable gentlemen, who used that argument, spoke much too lightly of the act of suspending the laws of the country. But suppose ministers had determined on that course,—suppose, after the termination of the session corn had risen as it did in 1816, and ministers had exercised the power which had been alluded to, would not that have been as great a prejudice to the main question as the present proposition? Would it not have been desirable that parliament should be summoned in the midst of their holiday relaxation to discuss the question—and, be it observed, to discuss it only negatively, and that under the clear and undoubted indication, that the existing law had been proved insufficient to meet probable contingencies? The course which had been adopted appeared to him to be much more fair, manly, and constitutional. The hon. gentleman's second objection to the measure was, that it would do no good. His majesty's government never pretended to bring it forward as a panacea for distresses, which they admitted were no more occasioned by the Corn-laws, than by any road-bill that had passed the House. But, would any body say that when there was intense distress,—when there were congregated hundreds of human beings who were unable to obtain more than a mere pittance to support their debilitated frames,—and when there were many who were not able to obtain even that, that the price of corn would have no effect? The measure was proposed to meet a possible contingency—to prevent corn from rising to a price so high, that the prevention could not be deemed by any man to be unimportant. For himself he must say, that, if ever there was a case in which the excesses of men in distress were to be pitied, it was in the case to which the hon. member for Dorsetshire had alluded. They were excesses produced by excess of misery. Not a symptom of bad feeling had been evinced, until the mistaken notion entered their heads of destroying the power-looms, to which they fancied their dis-

1127
tress was attributable. Under these circumstances it would have been extreme and miserable cowardice on the part of his majesty's government, to have abstained from proposing a partial remedy for the evil, lest their motives should be misrepresented. The course which government had taken, in order to suppress the outrages which had occurred in the manufacturing districts, proved that they were not under the influence of fear; for, on the first appearance of them, they had poured into those districts a body of troops sufficient to protect all good and terrify all ill-disposed persons. He was sure, therefore, that nobody who rightly considered the matter would attribute the concessions which government were inclined to make to the suffering subjects of his majesty, as the result of any timid or unworthy policy. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had desired ministers not to talk to him about the solemn nonsense of moral effect. Who had used the phrase he did not know; but, if the effect -of the measure were to soften any exasperation of feeling which existed in the manufacturing districts—if it tended to prevent agitators from turning that exasperation into any political purpose—he should not be inclined to shrink from the term which had been used. On the contrary, he should be prepared to contend, that government would not be acting wrongly in consulting the feelings of those with whose interests it was charged. With reference to the reflections which had been made by the hon. member for Dorsetshire on the petitions which had been received from the manufacturing districts against the Corn-laws, they had; not reflected upon the landlords, and therefore there was no occasion for the hon. member, as one of that class, to reflect so strongly upon them. Why the hostility of the landlords should be so strongly directed against this measure, he could not well understand, for he believed no measure was better calculated to promote their interests. He contended, that in the report of 1821, and more especially in the report of 1822, on the agricultural distress, there were many resolutions calculated to pave the way for a permanent revision of the Corn-laws, and for placing them on a very different system from that on which they were placed at present. He said that, under such circumstances, the country gentlemen could not take a course better
1128
calculated to prejudice them on any future consideration of the Corn-laws, than that which they were taking at the present moment. He hoped that many gentlemen of that class would take the advice which had been tendered them by his hon. friend the member for Brecon-— advice which reflected the greatest honour upon him. His hon. friend was as deeply interested in the question as any member whom he then addressed — but his hon. friend had frankly declared, that if this bill were passed to a second reading, he would support it, and would move for a modification of it in the committee. He hoped that his example would be followed by other country gentlemen; and that those of them who had no pressure from without, owing to existing circumstances, to which he need not more particularly allude, would give to government the power of doing great good, without the possibility of doing by it the slightest harm.
Lord Cliftonhoped that this measure would be merely temporary, but felt himself bound, in the choice of evils, to vote with ministers. From every information he had been able to collect from the best informed persons, he believed there was no probability of any scarcity, much less of any famine taking place in the country before the next harvest. So far was he from thinking that there was any "solemn nonsense" in the moral effect which this measure was described as likely to produce, that it was on account of that very "moral effect" that he voted for it. No practical evil, he was convinced, would arise from it; and if it tended, in any degree, to satisfy the public mind, it was at any rate one advantage gained.
Mr. Benettdeclared the cause of the existing distress to be the recent tampering with the currency, and added his conviction, that it did not arise out of the Corn-laws. The relief which this measure professed to give to the manufacturers, would be inefficient, if it were not attended by a paper currency; besides, the letting loose the bonded corn, would be of no advantage to the destitute and unemployed manufacturers, unless it were given to them. The effect of the measure must be either to reduce the market price of corn or not. If it did reduce it, it would involve the agriculturists in distress without relieving the manufacturers, and thus it would ul-

1129
timately prove destructive to the manufacturing interests by annihilating the home market, which was infinitely more valuable to them than the foreign.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, he would certainly give his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Brecon, and allow the bill to be read a second time. Any objections to the detail could be much more conveniently urged in the committee.
Mr. Stanleygave notice, that in the committee on the bill, he would propose a clause that the local committees, upon producing certificates of their having bought the bonded corn let loose into the market for the purpose of distributing it among the distressed manufacturers, should be entitled to claim from the Treasury repayment of the duties paid upon it. In making this proposition, which would have the effect of localizing the relief afforded by government, he trusted he should have the assistance of the majority of the House.
Sir E. Knatchbullfelt compelled to vote against the second reading of the bill. He had heard with considerable satisfaction the proposition which had come from the last speaker, but could not guess how far it would meet the approbation of government.
Lord Miltonsaid, he was rejoiced to hear that the proposition of the hon. member had the approbation of the hon. baronet; but if the hon. baronet supposed the House could get through this question without some discussion on the Corn-laws, he would find himself greatly mistaken. The measures now proposed proclaimed to the world that the Corn-laws were laws which could not be permanent in this country. They were laws for fair weather, and whenever a storm arose, it became necessary to re-consider them. Honourable members must, therefore, if this measure passed, make up their minds to consider fully the whole question at an early period of the next session. He was not absurd enough to suppose that the Corn-laws were the sole cause of the existing distress in the manufacturing districts; but he had no hesitation in saying, that in one respect they had a great effect in producing it, and that was in the interruption which they gave to the commercial interests of our manufacturers with foreign countries. Honourable gentlemen might depend upon it, that the Corn-laws would be settled in one way or another before long.
1130
In his opinion they could only be settled in one way; and that was upon the principles of free trade. With respect to the measure more immediately before the House, he did not think that it would be of any effect; neither did he suppose that ministers thought it would be of any effect, except in preventing any aggravation of the existing distress. Ministers must, however, give him leave to say, that the time at which they had proposed this measure, had led, in certain quarters, to the opinion, that they had other views than those which they professed in proposing it. He was bound in justice to say, that he did not entertain such an opinion. —He gave ministers credit for the views which they professed to entertain—and hoped that they did not intend to let the present measures be merely insulated and temporary. He contended, that in whatever view this question was taken, it resolved itself at last into the amount of the burthens which the different classes of the community bore. Now, he maintained that the landed gentlemen formed that class of the community which had the least cause to complain of the burthens imposed upon them. [Hear, and cries of "No."] He said "Yes," for who were the chief cause, who the great instigators, who the main supporters, of the late war, which had imposed such a weight of taxation on the nation, but the country gentlemen? [Loud cries of "hear," from various quarters of the House, which was re-echoed back for some time, accompanied with cries of "No, no."] He! should not be put down by cries of "No,] no." He said it was "Ay, ay," and he: defied and challenged the other side to prove that he was incorrect. The country gentlemen were the instigators, and the promoters of the late war. He did not say that, in so doing, they had acted wrongly. He knew that members of his own family had supported it as strongly as any persons; but he repeated, that it was the country gentlemen who had pledged themselves to expend life and fortune in support of that war. Now, what was the case? When the fortune became really affected—he said nothing of the life, by the diminution of two shillings, or even one shilling in the rent of the acre, they declared that they had already paid for that war in the direct shape of taxes, and ought not to suffer any further diminution of their income. Now, he could shew that the Corn-

1131
laws, which were the creature of the war, added 10 s. a quarter to the price of every quarter of wheat grown in this country; and, as the consumption of the country amounted to 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 of quarters annually, they inflicted a taxation of 7,000,000 l. annually, on the people of England, for the benefit of the landowners and of the landowners alone. Let the landowners controvert that position if they could; and when they could, then, but not till then, they might say, that they had expended their fortunes in support of the war. The plain fact was, and it was impossible to disguise it, that they had raised their fortunes, instead of having spent them, in the war; and they now endeavoured, by the operation of the Corn-laws, to keep up the high rents which they had contrived to get from their tenants during that period. In spite of all the opposition he might meet with in making such a declaration, he would contend, that the effect of the Corn-laws was, to inflict a heavy taxation on the people of England. It was not, however, in that view of the question that he considered the Corn-laws most impolitic. Their great impolicy was in their acting as a non-intercourse bill with the country. He would gladly support any measure that was calculated to relax the fetters which this bill imposed upon the country, and, conceiving that the present measure would have that effect, he gladly gave it his support.
Mr. Secretary Peelregretted very much that the noble lord had made a speech, which, with whatever good humour it might have been delivered, was, in consequence of the introduction of some topics, calculated to interrupt the temperate and moderate course in which the debate had hitherto proceeded. An opportunity had been taken by the noble lord to involve the House in a very important discussion, which, however fit for consideration on another occasion, was certainly rather ill-timed on the present [cheers, with cries of "no, no!"]. When he heard it preferred as a charge.—
Lord Milton.—Not as a charge.
Mr. Peelcontinued.—Well then, when he heard the landed interest referred to as having supported the government at an arduous crisis, he felt that they had a right to look back to what they had done with conscious pride and satisfaction, considering the glory their country had acquired, and the services they had ren-
1132
dered it. Though he supported with the greatest cordiality a measure opposed by many of the country gentlemen, he yet felt it his duty to vindicate them from a charge to which he felt they were not obnoxious. The noble lord said, they were unwilling to submit to the reduction of their rents and their extravagant profits. It was not more than three or four years since agriculture had been suffering great distress, and during the whole interval the price of corn had not been such as to afford any exorbitant rent. In fact, the agricultural interest was now only just recovering from the depression of 1821. He was not disposed to go at length into the general merits of the measure before the House. These had been already ably discussed. With respect to the two suggestions of the hon. member for Brecon and the hon. member for Wootton Bassett, he was not able, at that moment, to form an opinion; and he requested the House to give them a deliberate consideration before they adopted them. The present measure appeared to him more fit than any other for the exigency, as it left every thing else indefinite, and purposely avoided any intimation of opinion with regard to the general question. Another suggestion made by an hon. gentleman was one that required very serious deliberation. He had no doubt it originated in the best intentions, but he saw many difficulties in the way of its being carried into execution. He would not then go into the question, whether public aid ought to be granted to the distressed manufacturers. But he would state his opinion, that if aid was to be granted, the direct course was to be preferred. Many objections arose as to the details of this proposition. The remitting of the duty on the corn taken out of bond, for the relief of the distressed, would give a preference to those places which were in the neighbourhood of the warehouses where the corn was lodged. Those who were distant from the ports would not have the same opportunity of benefitting themselves. Another objection was, that it would give a premium to the purchase of bonded corn. It was desirable, however, that the home grower should stand at least on the same footing with the holder of foreign corn. On any future occasion the same course would, in all probability be called for. He would therefore rather that direct aid should be given from the Treasury. He

1133
had never given a vote in that House with a more perfect conviction that the measure he supported was not only favourable to the general interests of the community, but he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he considered it to be expressly and mainly for the interest of the agriculturist, concurrently with all the other great interests of the country. There were three courses which the House might pursue. The first was, to enter on a general discussion of the whole question; but, on that point, the House had thrice decided, and he therefore did not think it necessary to consider that. The other two courses were either to leave things as they were, or to pass the bill; and he was prepared to contend, that to pass this bill was more conducive to the advantage of the landed interest than to leave things as they were. If this bill was passed, what would be its effect, in case corn did not rise? None, for then it could not come into operation. In case corn did rise, it would provide against an emergency calculated to cause much evil in the country. Taking the average price of corn during the last twenty-five years, it was evident that the chances were not so few, as to make it certain that such a contingency would not arise. Looking upon the situation of the country, it was evident that some preparation ought to be made; for a new parliament was of necessity to assemble soon. In case the emergency arose during the dissolution, how was the executive government to proceed, if a slate of distress like the present should arise? The distress of the present moment was owing to the glut of the market, caused by the over speculation of last year; and that a state of distress might again arise, none could attempt to deny. The probability of it was evident from the average prices of corn during the last twenty-five years; in sixteen years of which it had exceeded 70 s. per quarter, and in eight of which it had been more than 90 s. Was not this contingency to be guarded against? The remedy for the evil was not to be procured at the moment. It ought to be provided before-hand. As to the amount of corn imported during that period, he found, by consulting the returns, that during nine years of those twenty-five, the quantity imported had been more than 9,800,000 quarters, making an annual amount of about 1,100,000 quarters, which left for each
1134
quarter of the year about 290,000 quarters. Now, the amount of foreign corn and flour in the warehouses, did not exceed 290,000 quarters, and the whole contingency of importation of which so much apprehension had been excited, did not amount to more than 800,000; a quantity of trifling amount compared with the annual consumption. What measure, therefore, could be more advantageous to the agriculturists than the present, which would prevent the possibility of having recourse to dangerous and sudden importations during the summer, and would render it imperative on a new parliament to enter upon that important topic? He disclaimed for himself and his colleagues all motives arising from fear, alarm, or distress. They were actuated by far different feelings— by the necessity of preventing a scarcity of food in the country, as well as a hasty decision of the Corn-laws from being made. By giving to the government the power which it sought for at present, the country gentlemen would place those laws beyond the reach of any sudden alteration, and would enable themselves to enter next year, into a fair and full discussion of them.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that his main objection to this measure was, that it was not called for by circumstances of necessity. No case had been made out for it, and any inference to be drawn from the state of the markets was unfavourable, rather than favourable, to it. It was now said, that it was not so much the amount as the invariability of duty which was the desired object; but was the letting of the bonded corn into the market a means of securing steadiness of price? Quite the contrary. The price of corn had never been so unvarying as for the last seven years, but this influx of bonded corn would generate great fluctuations in the price. He asserted, from a knowledge of the circumstances, that 50 s. would not remunerate the grower of corn. He then entered into a defence of the country gentlemen against the charges which had been brought against them, and denied that any measures taken by them had contributed to bring the country into its present state. Injustice had been done that class of gentlemen, than whom there were not any men to whom the national character was more dear, or who felt more sensibly for the other interests of society. He concluded by declaring his determination to oppose this measure in every stage.
Mr. Whartonsaid, he belonged to what were called the country gentlemen in that House, and his object in rising was to defend them from the charges which had been brought against them. It had been said, that it was they who brought the country to its present state of distress by supporting the last war. For himself, he should say that he was not one of those who supported that war: on the contrary, he had always opposed it, and supported every measure which was calculated to hasten its conclusion. He was, therefore, innocent of all its consequences, and he hoped his country would acquit him of being accessary to its bad effects.
The House then divided: For the second reading 189; Against it 65; Majority 124.

List of the Minority.

Ashurst, W.

Hurst, R.

Bankes, H.

Ingilby, sir W.

Barnard, visc.

Inglis, sir H.

Bastard, E. P.

Johnson, col.

Becher, W. W.

Jones, J.

Belgrave, visc.

King, sir J. D.

Benett, J.

Kingsborough, visc.

Bond, J.

Luttrell, J. F.

Burrell, sir C.

Manners, lord C.

Burrell, Walter

Marjoribanks, sir J.

Calcraft, J.

Osborne, lord F.

Cavendish, lord G.

Pollen, sir J.

Cavendish, C.

Powell, W. E.

Chandos, marquis

Pryse, Pryse.

Chaplin, C.

Pym, F.

Corbett, P.

Rickford, W.

Corry, visc.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Cotterell, sir J. G.

Rowley, sir W.

Curteis, E. J.

Sebright, sir J.

Dawson, M.

Sefton, earl of

Dickinson, W.

Shaw, sir R.

Duncannon, visc.

Smith, Abel

Fane, J.

Smith, hon. R.

Fleming, J.

Sumner, G. H.

Grant, J. P.

Trant, W. H.

Gooch, T.

Tremayne, J. H.

Gordon, hon. R.

Vivian, sir R.

Guise, sir W.

Webb, E.

Gurney, R. H.

Westenra, hon. H.

Harvey, sir E.

Wharton, J.

Handley, H.

TELLERS.

Heron, sir R.

Knatchbull, sir E.

Honywood, W. P.

Lethbridge, sir T.