Commons Sitting of 22 November 1826

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Sir John Brydgespresented a petition from the parish of Wootton, in Kent, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, and for putting down the new Roman Catholic Association. He said, that he could not remain quite silent upon a subject of such vital importance, lest he should incur the charge of supineness in a cause he was most desirous to advocate. He concurred in the prayer of the petition, and cordially rejoiced that the parish of Wootton was thus early in the field to express its opposition to popery, and its determination to uphold unimpaired our Protestant constitution; for he was firmly convinced that if the legislature did not promptly interpose its authority, and quickly make use of the power it possessed effectually to suppress the existing popish faction, and at once to shut the door against farther concession to the Roman Catholics, it must be expected, that that portion of the benches of that assembly,
96
which were now allotted to the Irish members, would no longer be filled with the representatives of the landed and commercial interests of that part of the empire but with the representatives of the popish priesthood. The petition which he now held in his hand was but from a small number of his Majesty's subjects; but it was from a whole parish, which, though little in extent, was large in loyalty and attachment to the constitution, and in abhorrence of popery; and consisted of intelligent and respectable inhabitants, deprecating the evils that must infallibly arise from an admission of the Roman Catholics to temporal power in the state. Earnestly did he hope to see the example of this petition followed by every county, town, and parish, in the empire: thus, as the streamlet quickly became a stream, enlarging until it covered a vast expanse, so might the petition be followed by others, multiplying as they arose, so as wholly to extinguish every hope of Catholic emancipation. If any man had had any doubts of the ulterior views of the Roman Catholics, those doubts must now be removed by the unjustifiable proceedings, since the dissolution of parliament, of that faction denominated the New Catholic Association, and by the part the parish priests had taken at the late elections in Ireland. The cloven foot was no longer concealed. The mask was removed; and if temporal power was to be conceded to the papists, they would soon become strong enough to seize upon spiritual; and then farewell to our Protestant religion and laws ! He called upon the country through the legislature, before it was too late, for an expression of Protestant feeling, by petitions to annihilate the present wicked attempt to overthrow the Protestant establishment in church and state; declaring that this was the time to remind the empire of the words of the immortal Nelson:—"England expects every man to do his duty!" and he trusted he should see presented to that House, without loss of time, petitions similar to the present, from one end of the kingdom to the other, more numerous than had been offered upon any other question. Whenever the question of Catholic emancipation should come before the House, he should be prepared to state his reasons for the opposition he should give to that measure. In the mean time, he implored those who had lately become members of that House, to

97
guard themselves against being inconsiderately influenced by the eloquent and impassioned language made use of by members from the sister kingdom, in advocating a cause on which, they were pleased to assert, depended the happiness and tranquillity of Ireland; but which, if they were as well acquainted with that country as he was, in his conscience he believed they would be satisfied had nothing at all to do with it.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CORN-LAWS.
Sir T. Lethbridgepresented a petition from the inhabitants of Abdick, Bulstone, and Ilminster, in Somerset, praying that the House would not permit any alteration in the Corn-laws, without the fullest investigation. He had in his possession many petitions on this subject, but from what had been said last night by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who had intimated the intention of government to bring the subject before the House shortly after the adjournment, he should, for the present, withhold them. For the same reason, and as the right hon. gentleman had said, that he would not be drawn into any discussion at present, he would for bear from making any of the observations which forced themselves upon his mind at this moment. He did not ask his Majesty's government to state what was their intention on any part of it; but feeling the importance of the subject, he could not help insisting upon the necessity of obtaining all the information that could be come at respecting the operation of the Corn-laws as they at present existed. If any inconvenience had been experienced, which he very much doubted, because the laws which existed had not been put into execution, it could only be satisfactorily ascertained by means of the inquiry to which he now alluded. He wished the whole system of the laws on this subject to be put on a different footing; but what he was most desirous to impress on his Majesty's government was, the necessity of procuring full and complete information, before any new enactment should be resolved upon. It was not for him to suggest to ministers the course that they ought to pursue; but, as far as his own opinion went, he was decidedly in favour of the appointment of a committee, without which he thought the question could not be fairly and usefully re-agitated and re-discussed. When this question had last
98
been the subject of discussion before the House, a committee was appointed, and an examination instituted, which, although it was not carried as far as he could have wished, obtained a great deal of useful information on the subject. Great alterations had taken place since that period, not only in the amount of taxation, but in the circumstances relating to foreign corn; and the only new information of which the country was in possession, was that which had been obtained from the report made last on this subject by Mr. Jacob. That report was certainly a most important document; but, it did not contain information enough to enable the government to adopt any regulations which should have the effect of changing the present laws. He had no wish the discussion should now be pressed; and when the time at which it was to be entered upon should have arrived, he hoped it would be conducted with temper and moderation. In the mean time, he hoped that none of the charges which had been so unfairly brought against landowners or occupiers would be repeated, or that the unjust tone which had been assumed towards them should be indulged in; and he was induced to make this observation because he was sure that, in the minds of all thinking men, there could be only one wish; namely, that the question might be disposed of so as to suit the interests of the whole of the inhabitants of the united kingdom.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had heard the announcement made last night by his Majesty's ministers, that they would not at present enter upon this subject, with considerable regret. If they were aware of the agitation which the notion of any alteration in the Corn-laws had occasioned, not only in the agricultural, but in the manufacturing, interests of the country, he was sure they would not have formed any such resolution. He thought it was too much for ministers to call parliament together in November, and tell them then that they had a plan to propose, but which they did not intend to bring forward until February. He was aware that it might be inconvenient to them to disclose that plan at present; but, however inconvenient it might be, their duty left them no alternative but to do so. It was inconvenient to him, and he had no doubt it was equally so to many other members, to be in town at this season; but being here, he should think he failed in his duty if he neglected to press upon

99
government the necessity of a speedy expression of their opinion on the subject of the Corn-laws. He thought it would be better that they should bring forward at once whatever measures they intended to propose, because he was not one of those who felt alarm as to the nature of the proposition; nor did he believe, whatever it might be, that it involved the ruin of the landed proprietors in the kingdom. For this reason he was extremely anxious that the subject should be immediately entered upon.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Althorprose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for the renewal of the resolutions passed on the 26th of May last, relating to bribery and corruption in returning members to serve in parliament. But it might be necessary for him, before he did so, to explain to the House, for the information of those members who were not in parliament when these resolutions were adopted, the nature of the measure which he meant to submit to their notice. If his noble friend (lord John Russell) who first introduced them, were a member of this parliament, he should have left the task of bringing them forward to him, but his noble friend not having at present a seat, he felt it to be his duty to propose them. In all the discussions which had taken place on this subject, it had been constantly stated by its opponents that their opposition was founded upon hostility to any sweeping measure which went to change the constituted body, but that whenever an instance of gross bribery or corruption was made out against any particular borough, the place ought to be disfranchised, and that they were ready to act upon that principle as often as such a case should be brought forward. Yet, notwithstanding such a declaration, it was quite notorious that many boroughs, wherein gross and open corruption was practised, were not as yet disfranchised. Hence the necessity for the introduction of those resolutions which were proposed, by his noble friend, at the close of the last session of parliament, and which he had now the honour to call upon the House to sanction by its vote. Very few cases of corruption, comparatively speaking, had been brought before the House, although every one seemed to agree in the necessity of putting a stop to a system which was admitted, on all hands,
100
to be a very great grievance. Cases of individual corruption were so general, that proofs were difficult to be brought forward to establish particular facts. From the arrangements of the House, and the present law relating to bribery and corruption, the facilities to prosecute inquiry were not sufficiently open, owing to the expense attendant on such inquiries, and other considerations which combined to produce that effect. The chief object, therefore, of these resolutions was, to point out a proper tribunal, where petitions complaining of acts of bribery and corruption in the return of members to serve in parliament, should be fully examined. There were no new powers proposed by these resolutions; it was only sought to point out a mode by which old powers should be acted on. It was perfectly competent to him, as a member of that House, to present a petition against a particular case of bribery and corruption; but he wished the House to adopt some mode by which that petition should undergo an impartial examination. He believed that the adoption of the resolutions of last session had produced a beneficial effect during the late elections; and he felt perfectly convinced, that if those resolutions were adopted by the present parliament, many peculiar cases of corruption that most required reform would be brought to light, and considerable good would thereby be effected. Doubtless, great advantage would be felt, if those boroughs in which open and shameless violations of the law were practised, were disfranchised, and the elective franchise' extended to more important places. The law said, that no petition against the return of a member of parliament should be received by the House after fourteen days from the time of the assembling of parliament; but these resolutions referred only to petitions presented after that term. The great objection made to those resolutions was the expense which would be incurred by the public in prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption; but all public committees incurred expense; and surely, if ever there arose a necessity for a committee of that House to examine into the merits of a question, with a view to the correction of abuses for the public good, the House should not pause from the fear of expense, when the object to be attained was, to check and put down a system of shameless bribery and corruption in the election of its own members. These

101
resolutions provided, that the House would not take into consideration any petition, complaining of bribery and corruption, until the merits of such petition, and the specific grounds on which it was preferred, were first ascertained by a select committee appointed for that purpose. It was argued against that provision, that private feelings would influence such committee, and that the party petitioned against would find sufficient favour amongst its members to counteract the design of the petitioners. But if a case of gross corruption were made out on clear and satisfactory evidence, he had too good, and he hoped too just, an opinion of that Mouse, to suppose that any portion of its members would, under such circumstances, refuse inquiry. And if that inquiry were once set on foot by the House, the resolutions provided the means by which that inquiry could be prosecuted with effect. He was not aware of any other objections against the resolutions which he should now have the honour to propose; and he was free to own, that he could not conceive on what possible grounds the House could object to his motion. Certainly, if the measure should be rejected by those whom he had now the honour to address, after having been agreed to last session, he should say it would be a most extraordinary thing; and he could not bring himself to believe that such could be the fact. The noble lord sat down with moving the first of the following resolutions:—
"1. That whenever a petition shall be presented to this House, after the expiration of the time allowed for presenting petitions against the validity of the return of any member of this House, by any person or persons, affirming that at any time within eighteen calendar months previous to presenting the said petition, general bribery or corruption has been practised, for the purpose of procuring the election or return of any member or members to serve in parliament for any borough, cinque port, or place, and it shall appear to this House that such petition contains allegations sufficiently specific to require further investigation, this House will appoint a day and hour for taking the said petition into consideration, so that the space of twenty days shall intervene between the day on which the said petition shall have been presented, and the day appointed by this House for taking the same into consideration; and notice of
102
such day and hour shall be inserted, by order of the Speaker, in one of the two next London Gazettes, and shall also be sent by him to the returning officer of the borough, cinque port, or place, to which such petition shall relate; and a true copy of such notice shall, by such returning officer be affixed to the door of the town-hall or parish church nearest, to the place where the election of members to serve in parliament for such borough, cinque port, or place, has been usually held.
"2. That at the hour appointed by this House for taking such petition into consideration, this House will proceed to appoint a select committee to inquire into the truth of the matters contained in the said petition, and report the result of their inquiry to this House; and such select committee shall consist of thirteen members, to be chosen by lot, according to the directions, provisions, rules, and regulations, and subject to the exemptions for choosing forty-nine members by lot, contained in the various acts to regulate the trials of controverted elections, or returns of members to serve in parliament, so far as they are applicable thereto, and of two other members to be appointed by this House, out of the members then present in this House; and the thirteen members so chosen by lot, together with the two members to be so appointed by this House, shall be a select committee, and shall inquire into and try the matter of such petition, and shall report their opinion thereof, together with the evidence given before them, to this House.
"3. That this House will not appoint such select committee so long as any trial is pending before a select committee of this House to try the validity of the return, or so long as a day is named in the orders of this House for appointing a select committee to try the validity of the return, for the borough, cinque port, or place to which the petition refers."
On the first resolution being put from the Chair,
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he certainly did not mean to differ on general principles from the noble lord who had just sat down, although, he should feel it his duty to object to the mode in which he proposed to carry his resolutions into effect. He agreed with the noble lord in conceiving it to be the bounden duty of the House to inquire into every case where gross bribery and corruption were said to have been

103
practised; but he had too much reliance on the honour and integrity of the House, not to feel confident that there existed no disinclination among its members to inquire into and investigate, with effect, any case of open violation of the law that might be brought before it. Agreeing as he did on principle with the noble lord, he only differed from him with regard to the proposed resolutions. According to the existing law, it was competent not only to any voter at an election, but to any one of his Majesty's subjects, to petition the House of Commons against any particular case of bribery and corruption that came within his observation. That right had been exerted with advantage; and instances had occurred of persons going down to elections without having had a vote to bestow, who were, nevertheless, proved to be competent to petition against the return of the successful candidate, on the grounds of bribery and corruption having taken place at the election. But the law of the land was also open to complaining parties; and he could not avoid observing, that that was the best and most legitimate mode to pursue in such cases, and was even to be preferred to any legislative enactment that the House might think proper to adopt. By the first resolution, it was proposed, that at any time, within eighteen calendar months, any person was at liberty, without incurring the slightest expense, and without risking the least responsibility, to advance charges of bribery and corruption, that perhaps were totally unfounded and unjust, while the members against whom they were directed must defend themselves at their own expense. Now, he would ask, was that just or reasonable? Was it fair that the accusing party should be relieved from all expense attending proceedings, and from all the consequences of the responsibility which he himself incurred, while the accused was thrown on his defence, which he must conduct at his own expense? These were amongst the principal objections to the resolutions of the noble lord that occurred to him at that moment. The power which these resolutions would give to parliament was one which might, on all proper occasions, be beneficially exerted. If these resolutions were passed, there would be no want of petitioners to aver, that gross and corrupt perjury had existed in certain boroughs during the last election. And there was no doubt but
104
there would be enough of persons found to prefer complaints, without any just ground to warrant their application, solely with a view to raise a contribution on the fears of those against whom their complaints were directed; and it would be but reasonable to suppose that, rather than incur the expense of a defence, and the odium which would result from a public imputation of bribery and corruption, however that imputation might have been unworthily urged, the party accused would rather choose to accede to the proposition of the petitioner, by buying him over at his own price, than incur the expense of prosecuting his defence in public, and risking the odium of the contest. He had no hesitation in saying, that many would rather accede to almost any proposition, however base and mercenary, than adopt the other alternative. The noble lord contended, not only that a borough in which bribery and corruption had been at work should be disfranchised, but that the member condemned of wilfully suffering such bribery and corruption to be exerted in his behalf, should both lose his seat and be expelled the House. Cases of great aggravation might arise to render these measures necessary; but the House should pause before it afforded an opportunity to designing men to play upon the fears of others. How many petitions, he would ask, might not eighteen months bring forward? If the first failed, would not several shoot up while the temptation of aggrandizement existed? The Grenville act proceeded to legislate on a distrust of the House. It had all the effect of a decision of parliament; and it was therefore unnecessary while that act existed, to call for other powers. Supposing a case, in which members should disagree with respect to the amount of corruption practised in a particular case. One of the committee might say that corruption had been proved in one instance out of a hundred charges that had been made, and therefore that the guilt of the accused was evident; while another might say, if ten charges were proved out of a hundred, that those ten charges were insufficient to establish a guilty intention, while so many more required to be substantiated. It was, therefore, the more desirable, in his opinion, that the feeling of the committee appointed to investigate charges of this description should be reported to the House, as was usual on other occasions.

105
Entertaining, therefore, as strong a desire as the noble lord himself could have, to adopt some tangible remedy for the evil, which all admitted and deplored, he must be allowed to say, that it would be safer and wiser to deal with particular cases, as they should arise, than to adopt the whole of the proposed resolutions. For his own part, he felt no inclination to distrust the present committees of the House of Commons; and he was convinced that when occasion offered, it would do its duty. If the resolutions passed, he would certainly object to that part of them which took from the petitioner any responsibility which his own acts might draw upon him; and he should also object to the expenses incurred in the prosecution of petitions being paid by the public, For himself and his right lion, colleagues he begged to say, that his Majesty's ministers had no other feeling in the present discussion, than that the House should act according to its wisdom and discretion.
Mr. Batley,member for Beverley, said, that he quite agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, and conceived that the statute law afforded a sufficient provision against bribery and corruption in the election of members of parliament, without having recourse to the resolutions proposed by the noble lord.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was quite certain that the right hon. gentleman would not; so soon have put forth his strength against the resolutions which the House had adopted at the close of the last session, if he were not certain of being supported by the strong phalanx which was about him. In his opinion, it would have been much better for the right hon. gentleman to have displayed his ingenuity in correcting the faults of those resolutions than to have exercised it in attempting to get rid of them altogether. If ever there was a time which called for interference of the House to correct the abuses with which the business of elections was conducted, it was the present; for after the experience which every person had had of the late elections, it was evident how little terror the resolutions of the House inspired. There never were so many cases of gross and flagrant corruption, against the recurrence of which it was the duty of the House to take all practicable precautions. The charity of the last speaker towards the persons to be affected by these resolutions was most suspicious. It would
106
be neither good for the representation of the House nor for the electors themselves; as he believed, in most cases, that charity would find its way to the ale-house. The resolutions were adopted solemnly at the close of the last parliament. Of that parliament he wished to say very little, either of its sins of omission or commission; but it appeared that it had, like other sinners, a death-bed repentance, and had left the House a legacy, in those resolutions, calculated to sweeten its memory and to do the country some good. The right hon. gentleman said, it was easy for the House, when a special case arose, to take it into its consideration. No doubt the House was competent to do so; but the question was, would it do so? Was not the right hon. gentleman aware of the jealousy with which the House of Commons regarded the interference of a peer? and did he not recollect, with all its jealousy, how the subject was got rid of, on a late occasion, under the pretence that the petition was presented out of date? That was a reason why the House should pledge itself to a reasonably extended time; for he knew, whenever a strong case could be made out, it could be got rid of, by statements that it was irregular, and out of time. Suppose a petition was presented in a case of gross corruption. Why, the person who brought it forward was most likely influenced by selfish motives; his object being to eject a person from a seat which he himself desired to fill. Would such a person spend sums of money from the mere love of the independence of a county? No; every shilling spent was for the purpose of procuring his own object. He would be content to make out his charge of bribery; but that was not what the country wanted. It was the duty of the House to sift the whole truth, and to cut away the sources of the mischief. To do so with effect was what the present resolutions proposed. If the right hon. gentleman thought the resolutions unequal to effect so great a purpose, it would be easy for him to add that which would make them perfect. It was quite impossible to look for purity of election until the system was altered. No individual, however high his virtues or talents, could engage in an election without an infraction of the law, as it at present stood. In many places, the electors hunted after candidates who had money to spend, and were disposed to spend it

107
freely. Let any man of pure and unsophisticated principles try what chance he stood in opposition to the person answering one of those invitations, and he would soon find out whether virtue or money was the more powerful in this country, or which would best insure a return to that House. The right hon. gentleman was well informed of the nature of the evil. It would therefore be easy for him to allow the resolutions to pass, and then to offer any corrections which his experience might suggest.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that the House was called upon to affirm or to reject resolutions, which went to create a new offence and a new mode of trial. The end might, be a very proper one; but it would, he conceived, be infinitely better that this new jurisdiction should be sanctioned by a bill, rather than by a resolution of the House of Commons. Such a mode of proceeding would admit of consideration and discussion in the different stages, whereby errors might be corrected and improvements introduced. But the House was called upon by the noble lord to adopt at once resolutions on a subject of infinite importance. Did not the noble lord think it a serious matter, that a committee of the House should be empowered to administer an oath? Was it not a serious matter that a common informer might keep in his pocket, for seventeen months and twenty-eight days, a petition affecting the interest of individuals and of corporate bodies; that, at the end of seventeen months he might, if he pleased, prefer his charge against a corporation, or an individual to the House, without expense to himself, and without one word being inserted in the resolutions as to a penalty in case of vexatious or malicious charges? He was surprised to hear the hon. member, who spoke last, assert, that there had been more gross bribery during the last election than at any former period; and this in the face of the resolutions. The fact proved, then, the insufficiency of the resolutions; although the hon. member considered it as a sufficient reason for adopting them. He was not contending against the principle of the noble lord. He repeated what he had slated last session, that this measure should be introduced by bill, and that the nature and the extent of this now jurisdiction should be carefully determined. The House should have the opportunity of ma-
108
turely deliberating upon a subject so seriously affecting the privileges of parliament. He would not deny that it might be right that the law should be altered to meet cases of corruption, when it had been evaded by the lapse of time; but then it should be done by bill. The period likewise might be six weeks, or even a fortnight; but not eighteen months. He merely threw out these observations to show that he was not hostile to the principle of the resolutions; but he protested against a party being permitted to petit ion, without giving security that he should be indemnified, and that he need only allege general bribery. He protested against the House being called upon tonight, to say by what jurisdiction the object should be attained. He protested against such precipitate and premature legislation. He must, therefore, oppose, not the principle, but the expediency of the resolutions.
Mr. Scarlettdoubted whether the resolutions of the noble lord would meet all the objects he had in view, and felt that there was some weight in the arguments urged on the other side of the House; though the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had taken rather a partial view of the question. It had been urged by an hon. member, that the existing laws were sufficient for punishing bribery, provided they were properly executed. The resolutions of the House enabled them to do it, if they were exerted. The right hon. gentleman had dwelt upon the long period during which a common informer might keep a petition in his pocket; but it was in the discretion of the House, if such a case occurred, to deal with it in a proper manner, and reject the petition altogether. Another argument of the right hon. gentleman was just, and showed the infirmity of the resolutions; namely, that the party petitioning incurred no peril. He thought that this was a serious defect, and that it could not be remedied by a resolution of the House. This House could not inflict a penalty: it could not even inflict costs upon the party. This power did not belong to a separate branch of the legislature. Moreover, if the defect were attempted to be supplied by a bill, was the House sure that the other House would pass it? This House might adopt it; but this House depended in some measure, for the pure exercise of its functions, upon the other House, and might propose for that object

109
what that House would not adopt. He could not, therefore, approve of the resolutions, whilst no penalty attached to a person presenting a malicious petition; and this House could not provide a penalty, or even require a recognizance, though such an object might be accomplished. The power of the House, however, depended upon its freedom from reproach; and it was their interest that mankind should know that the House would proceed by some certain method to reach corrupt practices. At present, after the lapse of fourteen days, there was no method of touching a case of bribery and corruption. If a law was introduced to regulate this subject, even to meet a particular case, such as the disfranchisement of a borough for bribery, he was afraid, from past experience, that there might be a difficulty in obtaining the concurrence of the other House. He did not mean to say that the House would not punish cases of gross corruption; but he referred to general cases. He must state, that he did not feel quite satisfied with the noble lord's resolutions; but his chief object in rising was to recommend, that some certain rules should be laid down upon this important subject. He felt that there was some force in the objections urged against the resolutions; but if his noble friend would withdraw them, they might be modified so as to meet with general concurrence. But if his noble friend persisted in pressing them, he would feel some difficulty in opposing them; not because he entirely approved of them, but because he considered them as a step towards a very desirable object.
Mr. Pallmer,member for Surrey, said, that the importance of the question and a sense of duty impelled him to offer a few observations to the House. He was the more induced to do so, because, with reference to the subject involved in the resolutions; namely, the purity of election, hon. gentlemen must be, so soon after the general election, strongly impressed with the necessity of some measure, to enforce the principle contained in them. His gratitude, as an independent member of parliament, was due to the noble lord who brought forward the propositions, as well as to the noble lord with whom they originated, because he was proud to see the aristocracy of the country advocating the rights and privileges of the people. But, much as he felt indebted to those noble
110
lords, his humble opinion was, that the real, effective, and complete removal of the obstructions which impeded the free exercise of the elective franchise, could only be effected by the interference of; a wise and liberal administration; and he hoped to see the day when, instead of objections being brought forward, as on the present occasion, to such measures, his Majesty's ministers would take into their consideration the inconveniencies that obstructed the exercise of the elective franchise, and give to such, a measure the weight that an administration alone could give. Whilst employed on measures giving freedom to conscience and to commerce, it was not beneath them to give freedom to the constitution. There was no man he would look to with more confidence, with this view, than the right hon. Secretary who had so distinguished himself by his attention to the amelioration of the criminal law. The country expected it from him. He hoped that, in his judicious hands, the constitution might be restored to its original purity, and be freed from all impediments. He hoped that the other right hon. gentleman, who had adverted to the legislative measures of the Grenvilles on this subject, would not forget that the chief praise of the family to which he belonged was their efforts to preserve the freedom of election. He hoped that the present government would imitate their example, and do all in their power to secure to the country an unobstructed freedom and purity of election.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the present resolutions were to be embodied in a bill, there was not the slightest chance of its passing the other House. The only hope of adopting the present rules was by a resolution of the House. The most material objection which had been urged against the resolutions, was founded upon the power which it gave of presenting petitions without expense. This was the unavoidable consequence of founding the measure upon resolutions, and not upon a bill. But he did not think, that, practically, any such effects would result as were suggested, and if they did occur, it would be easy to find a remedy for such a practical evil. However, as it seemed to be the general wish of the House that the resolutions, in their present state, should be withdrawn, he would, with the consent of the House, withdraw them.
The motion was then withdrawn.

DR. SOUTHEY'S RETURN FOR DOWNTON.
The Speaker The Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received a letter from a member of the House, which, if it were the pleasure of the House, he would read. It was as follows:
"Keswick, 15th November, 1826.
"Sir;—Having, while I was on the continent, been, without my knowledge, elected a burgess to serve in the present parliament for the borough of Down ton, it has become my duty to take the earliest opportunity of requesting you to inform the honourable House, that I am not qualified to take a seat therein, inasmuch as I am not possessed of such an estate as is required by the act passed in the 9th year of queen Anne. I am, Sir, with all due respect, &c. ROBERT SOUTHEY."

ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
The Address on the King's Speech was reported to the House. On its being read a second time,
Mr. Westernrose for the purpose of submitting an amendment, by way of addition to the Address. This he felt to be necessary, not that he was hostile to any part of the Address, but that he was desirous to fill up an omission on a question most important to the country. The Address adverted to the distressed situation of the manufacturing districts, but it omitted to state, in any particular manner, the condition of the agriculturists, who, he would say, though not as depressed as the manufacturers, were still labouring under severe pressure, arising from the burthens to which they were subject. It became the more necessary to advert to the situation of the agriculturists, because the omission of that subject from the royal Speech went to confirm an opinion too prevalent in the country, that the agriculturists were in prosperity, and that they were flourishing, at the expense of the manufacturers. This opinion he knew prevailed among the manufacturing classes, and it had even been stated in that House by an hon. alderman. It was necessary that such an opinion should not go forth as sanctioned by that House, and therefore he felt bound, publicly, to deny its justice. The farmers, he could state, were in distress, and their condition generally declining. They were scarcely able to struggle against the burthens by which they were oppressed.
112
They could with difficulty pay the very reduced rents. Capital employed in agriculture was never known to bring so low a return as at present. The situation of the agricultural labourer was also one of great distress. They were never worse paid than at present. Instead of finding full employment at a good price as heretofore, they were obliged to entreat for it at a greatly reduced rate. The numbers, for whom no employment could be found, were daily increasing. The poor rates, as a necessary consequence, were increasing; and he feared that, unless some remedy was devised, they would, in a short time, be in a worse situation than the manufacturing poor. He did not complain that the present price of grain was inadequate; but then the value of that price to the farmer must depend on the burthens to which he was subject. He was prepared to contend that, compared with those burthens, the prices were much lower now than for a period of several years previous to the beginning of the late war. If he compared the present price of corn with that which it bore before 1792, he found that the quarter of wheat was then within 3s. or 4s. of what it sold for at present; and yet there were then only 17,000,000 l. of taxes annually taken from the people, while at this moment there were nearly 60,000,000 l. Did any doubt that the difference pressed heavily on the agriculturist of this day? He was prepared to contend, that the price of corn was not the cause of the distress suffered by the manufacturers. It arose from other causes to which he would not then particularly advert. He had stated them before, and should have another opportunity of submitting them to the House; but he wished the manufacturers to recollect, that twelve months ago, when they were in a state of admitted prosperity, the price of corn was 10 s. a quarter more than it was at present. It was too much, under these circumstances, to endeavour to persuade the country, that the price of corn had any thing to do with the cause of the distress. He felt it his duty, under these circumstances, to submit an amendment to the Address, assuring his Majesty, that while the House regretted the present distressed state of the country, it would take immediate steps to inquire into its cause. This he felt to be the first duty of the new parliament; namely, to trace the extraordinary

113
causes which had contributed to produce such an extraordinary change in the state of society, as they had witnessed within the last ten years. It was well known that, during the war, this country was in a state of commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural, prosperity, which had progressively improved. Was it not the duty of members to inquire what had interrupted this prosperity, and what had brought the country to a state of calamity; greater than any produced by any former war in which we had been engaged? He would not now state what the causes of it were, but would content himself with moving the following amendment, by way of addition to the Address:
"Your Majesty's faithful Commons feel it their duty to represent to your Majesty, and at the same time to express their deep regret, that the agricultural classes, though not suffering in the degree they did a few years ago, particularly in the year 1822, are yet in a state of severe pressure of distress, from the heavy burthens to which they are exposed. They will endeavour to trace the causes which have led to the dreadful alternations of prosperity and adversity which all the industrious classes have experienced since the termination of the war in the year 1815, and they trust they shall discover the means of restoring the agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, of the country to the same condition of progressive improvement, in which they were steadily advancing antecedent to that period."
Mr. Leycesterseconded the amendment. He could not but regret that the subject of the Corn-laws had not formed a part of the Speech from the Throne; the more particularly on account of the; strange delusion which filled the public mind on that subject. That it was a delusion to suppose that the distress was owing to the Corn-laws would be proved by the fact, that under those laws, and; even at higher prices than the present, the manufacturers, masters and journey-men, had prospered to a degree thereto-fore unexampled. He contended, that the distress arose from the impolitic conduct of government in tampering with the currency, from the great issue of small notes, and from the fact of ministers never allowing the country to enjoy the benefit of a real sinking fund. He maintained that it was another delusion to suppose that the repeal of the Corn-laws would produce cheap
114
corn to the manufacturers; for, as soon as foreign corn had driven some of our lands out of cultivation, the price would be higher than ever. But even supposing the price reduced, it should be considered that wages would be reduced in the same proportion; and he maintained that wages proportioned to a high price of corn would be much more beneficial to the artisan than those proportioned to a low price. Another delusion on the public was the assertion, that 8s. added to the price of corn by non-importation was a clear loss to the public of 15,000,000 l. He should be glad to learn, from those who maintained this opinion, where these millions went? Did they go up to the moon, whither so many lost articles were said to ascend; or did they sink into the earth, to be again dug up in congenial silver and gold? These were questions which he should wish to have answered. The hon. member went on to contend, that there was only one way of settling the question, and that was, by a reduction of taxation. If they removed the assessed taxes, which pressed on the farmer; if they removed the leather-tax; if they removed the malt-tax; if they removed the tax on tenants' leases; if they removed these and other burthens which pressed with peculiar severity on agriculturists, then they might hope to conciliate the landed interest, and to have their assent to a repeal of the Corn-laws; but, if ministers talked of the distressed state of the Treasury, he would remind them, that revenue removed was not always revenue lost, and that increase of consumption almost always followed diminution of taxation. If, however, they persisted in adhering to the present exorbitant rate of taxation, and wished for an alteration of the Corn-laws, he begged to inform them, that the landed interest would not be tamely sacrificed (not for the benefit of the manufacturing poor, for to accomplish that they would willingly make every sacrifice); but they would not be sacrificed for the benefit of the fundholder, who was already well off—or for the benefit of the army and navy, who were already very well off—or for the benefit of placemen and pensioners, who were already too well off—or for the advantage of the master-manufacturers, who were endeavouring to become noblemen and gentlemen, by turning the nobility and gentry into beggars; and lastly, not for the benefit of the Germans, who were just now in high

115
spirits at the idea of once more picking the pockets of John Bull.
Sir J. Sebrightopposed the amendment; not because he was indifferent to the interests of the landlords, but because he was convinced that the introduction of the subject at the present moment was extremely ill-timed. He could not agree that it was a fault in the Speech from the throne to have omitted the several topics yesterday alluded to. On the contrary he thought those omissions formed its great merit.
Mr. Westernsaid, that he would not take the sense of the House on the amendment; but he wished it to be put, as he was anxious to have it placed on record.
The amendment was then put, and negatived; after which, the original address was agreed to.