Commons Sitting of 27 March 1827

WRIT OF RIGHT BILL
Mr. Shadwellmoved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he earnestly hoped that the hon. and learned member would not press the second reading of this bill; for, though he did not intend to divide the House on it, he felt justified in characterising the proposed measure as the rudest and crudest specimen of modern legislature. The design was good, and that was all. The execution had not the merit of being even harmless, for it could not fail to prejudice the great plan of improvement which was in contemplation, in respect to the entire code of laws touching real estates. The bill before the House

89
proposed to restrict the period in which writs of right could be brought from sixty to thirty years: but it did not say that no title should be required beyond the latter period, which was indispensable, to give efficacy to the plan. Nor would any injury arise from delay; for he did not believe that three actions of this sort were brought it all England in any one year, and in two of those the right occurred within the shorter period. Nor did the bill abolish the absurd errantry of knights clothed in the drapery of feudal times; nor did it cut down the number of jurors from sixteen to twelve—clauses which were as important as the restriction in the time. But there was still greater feebleness in the part relating to fines. The bill proposed, that when an individual purchased a freehold estate, a declaration should be inserted in the conveyance, that the wife was not to be dowerable; while the present plan was to convey the estate to a trustee to effect the same purpose; probably an abbreviation of fifty words, and the same number of pence, might be thus saved. But why, he would ask, did not the learned gentleman go at once boldly and honestly to the source of the evil, and cut off the expensive and dilatory process of fines? Here was a field worthy of his talent and of his standing at the bar; but he presumed the learned gentleman, like the rest of the professional fraternity, was afraid to do too much at once, in the fear that the venerable pile might bury himself and his hopes in the general ruin. But he need not dread any inconvenience from the plan he (Mr. H.) proposed, for it was of immemorial establishment. On the alienation of copyhold property, in which married women were interested, they had only to present themselves before the steward of the manor, who, handing to the lady one end of a rod, or not unfrequently a poker, and retaining hold of the other himself, by this simple symbol divested her of her interest, and thus satisfied all the objects of the law. A custom, not less efficacious, prevailed in the city of London, and in the borough which he had the honour to represent. In both these places, as also in many others, the wife appeared before the mayor, and privately expressing to him her voluntary concurrence, a valid transfer was effected, at a nominal expense, and in a way strikingly simple and complete. Why, he would ask, could not this course be
90
adopted and embodied in the present bill? He was far from thinking unkindly of the learned gentleman; but he really thought he had fallen into the vulgar and prejudicial error, that, to make a perfect statesman, he must give birth to a bill, it mattered not how short or how crude. This prolific and prodigal spirit was the bane of modern legislation, and that man was the greatest friend of his country, and would eventually earn the most solid and lasting praise, who should curtail and prune down our Statute-book, by rendering our laws intelligible and few. For these reasons, and many others that might be urged, he trusted the learned member would leave the subject in the hands of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, who had promised, at no distant period, to take all the laws touching real estates under his consideration, and, by subjecting them to the revision of a commission composed of competent persons, increase the enviable load of gratitude which he had, by his amended criminal code, already laid on the country.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he should be very sorry if the hon. and learned gentleman abandoned this bill, as he was persuaded that it would be very useful. On the one hand, it went to regulate matters of dower; and, on the other, proceedings in writs of right. In both these cases, its provisions would tend to save much needless expense, especially with respect to the antiquated forms of writ of right, which were so very tedious in their nature, and ought to be abolished. It was little less than ridiculous to see such things existing in the year 1827; and he thought they were such as required the attention of the right hon. Secretary, who had done so much, and so well, in the reform of the other part of our law. As the law at present stood, a man who possessed real property, and was anxious to dispose of it by will, could not do so, unless his will was witnessed by three persons. Such were the restrictions upon the disposition of his freehold property, even though it should be ever so small; while, on the other hand, if the same person was possessed of 10,000 l. in the funds, or of 15,000 l. in customary or copyhold property, he might dispose of it without having one witness to his will. Why was this difference made? It seemed to him, that no cause could be assigned for it. It was positively disgraceful, that in this country, and at this time, the laws

91
in which all persons had so vital an interest, should be in so confused a state. No man could now transfer his property without encumbering himself with conveyances, and loading himself with stamp duties; nor could he stir a step in altering the nature of his title, without throwing on himself or his purchaser such a great expense, as nearly invalidated all the benefit they might expect to derive from the matter. The alteration of such legal grievances was a subject well worthy of the interference of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and he called on him no longer to defer the measure. Let him not fear any opposition that interest might create. He might, perhaps, think that be could not grapple with such difficulties. without first being assured of the support of the House. Upon that support, in such a cause, he might fairly calculate; since every gentleman was interested in removing these vexatious restrictions upon his control over his own property. However, he was well aware of the difficulties that the proposers of any reforms in this matter would have to encounter; and felt convinced that, whenever they did go into the subject, they must be prepared with arms and weapons, and they must expect a painful warfare of principle against itself; but let the right hon. gentleman attempt it, and the House would carry him through. It was perfectly true, that there were in the legal profession some men as high and honourable in their feelings as any in the country, but there were also men in it who lived on the existence of its abuses, and who would use every effort to maintain them. But the opposition of such men ought not to be feared. It was manifest the abuses did exist, and the sooner they were put down the better. He called upon the right hon. gentleman to say, whether or not it was his intention to bring the matter under the notice of parliament.
Mr. Secretary Peeladmitted, that he had intimated such an intention, and had used, in the discussion on the Chancery bill, some expressions indicative of his opinion as to the necessity of an alteration in the forms restricting the transfer of real property. That opinion he had not abandoned, but at the same time he could not undertake the adjustment of a question of so much importance. Of this he was convinced, that those who were most willing to see a reform of the laws would, of all things, not wish any measure to be prema-
92
turely proposed. Whatever was done, the most cautious, and indeed the most severe, inquiry ought to precede it. However, he must take that opportunity of saying, that he did not agree with the hon. member for Rochester, as to the difficulties that must be expected from the opposition of interested individuals. He feared no such difficulties; and, indeed, he did not expect them. On the contrary, he had received offers of assistance from some of the most eminent men in the profession. He might be permitted to mention the name of Mr. Butler, who had made an offer of that kind. Besides that gentleman, there were others who had made similar offers, and who were now engaged in devising some plan for the reform of our civil laws. He was sorry to say, that from having been recently overwhelmed with business, he had had but little time to consider the matter. Indeed, when the subject should be brought forward, he thought he should best consult the advantage of the public, by proposing to devolve the preliminary inquiries upon a commission, to be specially appointed for that purpose; since he was convinced that the inquiry was of such a nature that it could not safely be intrusted to one individual. He should, therefore, consider it best to refer it to a commission, to be assisted in their inquiries by gentlemen conversant with the subject. Whether those gentlemen gave their services gratuitously or not would be a matter of little importance: though, if they aided the commission by their labours, he thought they ought to be allowed some remuneration. That some such inquiry as to the present modes of transferring real property, should precede any legislative measure on the subject, he had no doubt; and the question was one to which he was disposed to give the fullest consideration.
Dr. Lushingtoncongratulated the House and the country on the prospect of their obtaining some amelioration is the practice of transferring real property. He thought there was no subject that required a more close or accurate investigation. The proceedings that were at present necessary to create a title in any person, or to transfer that title from himself to another, were productive of infinite expense at the moment, and of infinite litigation afterwards. As a proof of the enormous expense attendant upon the present practice, he might mention, that in one instance an abstract of a title laid

93
before him consisted of no fewer than eight hundred sheets. That circumstance, however, reflected no discredit upon the solicitor from whose office it was issued, and who was one of the most honourable men in the profession. The truth was, that from the very technical manner in which titles were now prepared, that extreme length was rendered unavoidable; for, unless the abstract had been prepared in that manner, no person could have proceeded to sell the estate, nor would any conveyancer have sanctioned the purchase of it. He happened himself to be concerned in the purchase of property sold under an act of parliament; and, the respectable conveyancer employed, felt it his duty to object to the title, under the very act which he had himself framed, and it had cost a hundred guineas to have the doubt as to that title removed. Now, he thought that when such difficulties attended the purchase of property, and the establishments of titles, it was high time for the legislature to interfere. But their first step should be, to ascertain the nature and extent of the evil, and then, in devising a remedy, care should be taken that other evils were not let in, as great as those which it was intended to remove. He was glad that the subject was likely to be placed in such excellent hands; and he believed that the right hon. gentleman would give a greater boon to the landed proprietors in giving them the means of transferring their property with a clear and secure title, and without those expensive processes which were now necessary, than he would do by removing from them the whole amount of the poor-rates. Let him, then, proceed to the task, and so frame the laws relating to the transfer of real property, that there should be no other restrictions than those which were absolutely necessary to make the title of the purchase clear and secure, without embarrassing parties with the present expensive mode of proceeding.
Mr. Fergusonsaid, that as this bill involved the vital principles of every species of landed property in the country, the House ought to proceed in it with every degree of caution. If a commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the laws affecting real property, he trusted that the hon. and learned gentleman who had originated this bill would be appointed a member of it. He thought the country was greatly indebted to Mr.
94
Humphries, for the excellent work which he had written upon the subject, and that several of his suggestions deserved serious consideration. He hoped that the learned member would not press his bill on the House at present, but would leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Secretary, who had expressed his willingness to have this portion of the law of the country amended.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he did not object to the abolition of the circuitous forms which at present attended the transfer of real property. He admitted that the existing law might be amended, but he must remind the House, that the greatest caution ought to be observed in any attempts which they might make to amend it. Whilst they were simplifying forms, and putting an end to the unmerciful consumption of parchment which now took place, they must take care that they did not injure the vital rules and principles of law. He was ready and willing to lend his humble assistance towards the improvement of the formal and instrumental modes of conveyancing.
Mr. Peelrepeated, that he did not mean to pledge himself to the appointment of a commission. He wished the inquiry into this branch of the law of England, whenever it took place, to be conducted by persons whose experience would carry with it a warrant to the public, that any measures which they might propose would be judicious. He pledged himself that the subject should shortly be taken into consideration, and that no measure should be taken upon it without its undergoing the minutest inquiry.
Mr. Shadwellsaid, he would gladly give his assistance to such a commission as the right hon. Secretary had spoken of; but as some time would necessarily occur before the recommendations of that commission could be carried into execution, he thought that his bill ought to be in operation during the interval. It appeared to him to be the more rational plan to remove, as soon as possible, a portion of an evil, the existence of which was universally acknowledged, than to suffer it to continue with unabated force. He was therefore of opinion, that even supposing that this bill afforded but a partial remedy, more good would be done by permitting it to pass now, than by postponing it to an indefinite period.
The bill was read a second time.

CORN-LAWS.
Sir A. Grantbrought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Corn Trade Acts. On the question, that it be read,
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to take that opportunity of delivering his opinion on the general policy of the Corn-laws, which opinion, in some respects, was different from that of any hon. gentleman who had yet spoken on the question. He began by recapitulating some of the points urged by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,when he first brought forward the subject, and dwelt particularly on the claim put in by the agricultural interest, and admitted by the right hon. Secretary, to protection. Ministers had professed to adopt a course between the two extremes: but, at the same time, taking the average price at 60 s., they had given the balance in favour of agriculture, and had professed to do so. They had avowedly proceeded upon no fixed principle; and he was on this account the more anxious to state his view. He was decidedly convinced that protection ought not to be afforded to the landed interest to the extent of a single shilling, unless they could prove that they sustained a weight of taxation which was not borne by other classes of the community: to whatever extent they could establish, that they were sufferers beyond others, to that extent he was ready to give them protection; and upon that principle ministers and parliament had already proceeded in the recent improvements of the system, by the establishment of free trade in other commodities. Three or four years since, ministers had made their declaration on the subject of free trade; and they had properly felt bound to take a course between contending interests, but they had shewn no partiality, no undue favour as in the case of grain. Instead of benefitting one party to the injury of another, they ought to adopt only measures consonant with the general advantage of the whole community. He could see no difference between the claims of the grower of corn, and of the maker of shoes, or any other article: both had invested capital, and both ought to have the same fair play in employing that capital to the greatest profit, as far as it did not prejudice the prosperity of other classes. It was the height of injustice to give to the few an advantage at the expense of the many; yet this was what the right hon. Secretary had admitted he had done, in reference to
96
the importation of grain. It was the decided opinion of those who had given the subject more and deeper consideration than he had been able to apply to it, that the farmer was really as much interested in having food at a low price, as the manufacturer of cotton or wool. The present was a question between the proprietors of the soil and the rest of the community. It was not to be denied, that farmers who had leases might be injured, to a certain degree, by any sudden depression; but the claim put in by the growers of corn generally, for what they called a remunerating price, was one of the most preposterous that had ever been submitted to any assembly. Because corn had been at a high price when their leases were granted, and was now likely to be lower, the farmers, as was natural to all speculators, called upon the House to assist and support them, and to keep up the cultivation of poor lands to the exclusion of the produce of other soils. He protested against any such principle, and called upon the House to apply to the trade in grain the same system which it had applied to various other branches of commerce and manufactures. The foundation of the resolution which he meant to submit was, that corn ought to be bought by the subjects of this country wherever they could obtain it cheapest, and that importation ought to be allowed from any part of the globe. Nine-tenths of the community, upon this important question, were opposed to the landed interest. Now, if any man could procure for the price of his labour, two bushels of wheat instead of one, he wished to establish a law by which he might resort to that country where he could so obtain for the same sum twice the quantity of food that he could procure in another. The object of the law which ministers wished to establish was, to compel nine-tenths of the community to give their labour for one bushel of corn instead of two. He might be told, that the landowners wished that every person should receive a just remuneration. But how did their conduct bear out that assertion, when they endeavoured to keep up the price of every necessary of life, and thus prevented the manufacturer from competing with foreign countries; the consequence of which must necessarily be, the decrease of wages, and the throwing many individuals out of employment? It was, however, said, that unless this system of protection

97
was continued, the country would run the chance of being visited by a famine. "It is not," said the land-owner, "for my own sake, but for the sake of the public, that I desire this protection." A more fallacious argument never was advanced. If they would suffer corn to be imported only when it arrived at those very high prices which could rarely occur, then foreign countries would not be encouraged to grow corn, which they might exchange for English manufactures; but if, on the other hand, corn was freely admitted, then the whole world, on whom they must depend for trade, would be able to prepare an abundant supply of grain, to assist this country, if it suffered from the failure of the crops, or from any other circumstance. Without looking to averages a system which might be abused—without looking at the price of grain—he would open the ports to corn, in the same way as they were open to other articles. He would open a trade immediately with every country that had surplus corn to sell, and thus increase the demand for the manufactures of England. But, if they went on imposing a duty of 20 s. 8d. when wheat was at 62 s., it would be a long time indeed before they secured such a trade. A contrary course would open a wide door for the manufactures of this country, and would be exceedingly beneficial to those who were at present starving. As the law now stood, it was not worth the while of the foreigner to cultivate grain; and if there should be a bad harvest, the country would most likely be afflicted with a famine. Foreigners, under the existing system, would scarcely be induced to speculate in the cultivation of corn, which they would probably be obliged to keep for years, until it was spoiled. Suppose the duty were fixed at 15 s., without reference to average or price, the consequence would be, that every state in Europe which was able to supply a small quantity of corn, would be ready to open a trade with Great Britain; and he was perfectly satisfied there were very few hon. members who looked to the amount of the supply of corn from 1815 to the present moment, who could entertain any great fear, that the quantity of corn likely to be imported would injuriously affect the landed interest of this country. His proposition was, that the duty should now be laid at 15 s., and that 1s. should be taken off
98
every year, until it came to a permanent tax of 10 s. Though he was willing to do this, yet he was convinced that the agriculturists were not able to show that they paid in taxes more than four shillings above the other classes of the community. If this were done, the population would consume all the corn that was imported, as well as that which was grown in this country; the workman would be well paid, and the manufacturers would be enabled to get off their goods. Such would be the effect of setting free the trade in corn; but the present law tended to produce want and destitution in the country. He wished to introduce a countervailing tax, to the amount which the land-owners could show they paid beyond the other parts of the community. He was perfectly willing to do one of two things; and he should like to know how far the hon. member for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft) would meet him. The land-owners, it was said, paid ten or twelve millions more of taxes than the other branches of the community did. Now, he would either repeal those taxes, or give them a countervailing duty in proportion to the amount which they could prove they paid beyond the other classes of the community. It had been asserted by a noble lord in another place, that the land-owners paid 24–25ths of the poor-rates. This, however, was not the fact. Last year the poor-rates and parish-rates amounted to 6,900,000 l. Of this, 2,700,000 l. was raised on dwelling-houses, and the remaining 4,200,000 l. on the land; therefore, the land appeared to contribute two-thirds of the poor-rates, or 2,000,000 l. more than the other classes of the community. If, however, this sum of 4,200,000 l. were divided into three parts, it would be found that one third was not paid by the land-owners. The remaining two thirds, or about 2,500,000 l., were paid by them. But, of this 2,500,000 l., nine-tenths, he was prepared to show, consisted of wages. He had compared the rate of wages in Scotland, where there existed no Poor-laws, and in some counties of England where they were comparatively light, with other districts differently circumstanced; and he found that, wherever the poor rates were burthen some the wages were low, and that, adding the amount of poor rates to the rate of wages, both were still not equal to the rate of wages paid in Scotland. Twenty or thirty years ago, the

99
wages of agricultural labour in Scotland were twenty per cent below the wages of agricultural labour in England; but it was a curious fact, that they were now twenty per cent higher, arising entirely from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws.—Next, as to tithes—it was his firm conviction, that tithes were, in a great measure, paid by the consumer, and therefore the land-owners had no claim to peculiar advantages. As to the land-tax, when first it was imposed, it was not confined exclusively to land, nor was it so now: it applied to all branches of industry in a greater or less degree; but he was willing to take into consideration whatever sum was borne by the landed interest, to the exclusion of other classes of the community. Another item in the claim of the owners of the soil arose out of county rates; but it ought to be recollected, that country gentlemen were themselves the authors of county rates, and they ought only to permit them to be raised for legal purposes. If, indeed, the land only had to bear the charge of the prosecution of criminals for instance, relief to that extent ought to be afforded, and the expense paid out of the general funds of the country.—The agriculturists had a monopoly of the sale of various articles of agricultural produce—such as pork, mutton, tallow, and other things, by the imposition of duties on the importation of those articles, amounting to a prohibition. It was with astonishment that he had heard it asserted by some, that it would be better that no free trade at all should be allowed, and that the people should be compelled to purchase from the home-growers alone, such articles as the home-growers could sell them. He maintained, however, that the prosperity of the country depended mainly upon the freedom of foreign importation, and that if this was put an end to, the agriculturists would ruin their own customers, and bring the population of the country to a state of starvation. The amount of the value of goods manufactured in 1824 was 44,000,000 l.; in 1825, 49,000,000 l.; and in 1826, 47,000,000 l. Now, it was impossible that this country could consume manufactures to this extent. But if the trade in corn were thrown open, it would afford a vent for those manufactures; and every knife or stocking sent abroad would produce a profit, that would enable the manufacturer to pay his portion of the interest of the
100
national debt. The landholders appeared to think that the country could not do without them, since they paid so much of the revenue out of their rents; but he contended that the taxes would be much more easily paid by the mass of the population, if there were no rents at all, and therefore the country would do very well without the land-holders [coughing]. He did not mean to deny, that the depriving them of their rents would be a gross injustice; but he repeated, that the people could, with much less difficulty, pay the taxes, if there were no rents at all. He thanked the House for the attention they had paid him, and trusted he had stated his sentiments so as not to be misunderstood. He concluded by moving his first Resolution:—
That from and after the 5th of July 1827, and until the 5th of July 1828, a duty of 15 s. shall be imposed on every quarter of wheat imported from any foreign country into the United Kingdom; and, for the year from the 5th of July 1828, to the 5th of July 1829, a duty of fourteen shillings per quarter; and, in every succeeding year afterwards the duty shall be reduced one shilling, until the 5th of July 1833, after which time the duty of ten shillings shall remain a permanent and fixed duty, payable on every quarter of wheat imported from foreign countries, except Canada, as hereafter provided for."
Mr. Marshallseconded the motion, and stated that a great part of the very numerous and intelligent population which he represented, were not satisfied with the arrangement which the ministers had proposed on the subject of the Corn-laws, from which they expected no substantial relief.
Mr. Irvingbegan by paying personal compliment to the hon. gentleman who had preceded him, but to whose opinions on this subject he was diametrically opposed. The price of food, he contended, was of little importance to the welfare of the nation, compared to the greatness of its capital. He totally differed also from the hon. gentleman who had brought forward the amendment, and who, in support of it, had argued, that if the land paid no rent, the country might prosper as well as ever. Did that hon. gentleman not see, that if such a state of things existed, the occupier of the land would be in effect, the proprietor? This, however, was not entirely a question of conjecture

101
Prussia, Poland, and a great part of Russia, were cases in point; and what was the condition of the landowner, in those countries, but one of constant need? Was that the state to which. the hon. gentleman wished to reduce the landed gentlemen of this country? Nothing could be more frightful than the distress that pervaded the countries to which he had referred. The people were sunk into the lowest stage of want and wretchedness; and, in reality the government had become the general proprietor of the land. The main doctrine of the hon. gentleman was, that the intercourse of nations should be equal and unrestricted. He admitted that the principles of free trade were good in the abstract; but they were unfortunately impracticable. This country might make what regulations she pleased for her own trade; but do what she would, other countries would, in their own defence, continue to prohibit as much as they could the introduction of her manufactures. No advance, he maintained, had been practically made, towards a system of general reciprocity. He denied that the Corn-laws had been injurious in their operation on any branch of the public welfare. The law of 1822 certainly could not; for it had never affected prices; but, if it had, agriculture was entitled to protection. What right had any body—even the House of Commons itself—to tell any class of the community, that their industry should be placed in a worse condition than that of any other class. Yet the effect of the new doctrines of the hon. gentleman would be, to subject the most important interest in the country to a course of slow but constant depression and decay. It had been proved that the land of this country was capable of raising corn sufficient for the subsistence of the population. Justice, he said, therefore, required that the consumption of grain should be confined to our native produce, as it was with regard to our own manufactures. That would be the best system of national policy, because it was founded on a due regard to all the great interests. In illustration of its advantages, he cited the instances of Ireland and Scotland, both of which were formerly importing countries, but which now yielded a large supply of corn to this country. He had no doubt, if further capital were applied in those countries to the growth of corn, that there could be no fair apprehension that this country
102
would ever have occasion to depend upon foreign markets for a supply. Such being the case, it became the duty of the House to consider well before it permitted the home-grower of corn to be interfered with by the foreigner at all times.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, that the more this subject was investigated, the more evident it would appear, that the policy of forcing a home supply, by restraining importation, was injurious to the public interests. There was no doubt that, in the produce of manufactures, capital might go on to be applied almost unlimitedly, and that the result would be a continued reduction of the article produced, in price; but the case of agricultural produce was entirely different. The extent of the fertile land which we had to cultivate, must determine the extent in which capital could be applied to cultivation with advantage. Up to a certain point—so long as we worked only upon fertile lands—the application of capital tended to produce increased cheapness of price; but when the continued application of capital led us into cultivating poor soils, then the effect of that course would be a rise of price; the quantity of labour, &c., requisite to make those soils productive, was greater than that which we had been accustomed to apply before. If we cultivated poor land, while land of a superior quality was at our disposal, we in fact paid so much more than we need do: it was so much labour or capital thrown away; and this was exactly the effect of our refusing to take corn from foreign countries. To look at this system, therefore, as it affected the manufacturing interest, the quantity of corn consumed annually in this country was about fifty millions of quarters. If, by any law or arrangement, all that corn was purchased at the rate of 10 s. a quarter higher than it need be, the charge so laid upon the public would be 25,000,000 l. in money. And this was the system which gentlemen argued produced no injury to the country! What would be said, if the Treasury proposed to levy a tax of 10 s. upon every quarter of corn consumed? If all this 25,000,000 l. went even to the landlord, that would not be entirely ruinous: all events, it would be a transfer simply of so much money from the pockets of one class of people to those of another. But the fact was, taking the admitted average, that only

103
one third of the gross produce of land went for the landlord's rent, the landlord got only a third of it; at the utmost, he did not receive half. And what became of the rest of the 25,000,000 l.; that was, of the additional 10 s. a quarter? Why, the rest was directly wasted—thrown away—laid out in producing that from a lower soil, which a higher would have produced without its expenditure; it was wasted in growing corn at a higher price than we could purchase it. The consequence of this wasting so much money in growing corn on bad land was the lessening every year of the power to accumulate new capital, and the keeping the amount of the national wealth below what it would otherwise be. It served to check that progressive prosperity, which the hon. member had said was so desirable to be maintained; it curtailed the power of employing labour, and also the resources of taxation: it produced all the evils which can arise from keeping the wealth of the country from making such advances as it was capable of making, if not obstructed. The hon. member had stated opinions respecting the effect of the protection of corn upon our manufactures, to which he could not agree. In place of the protection of the landed interest being of any service to manufacturers, it was particularly injurious to them. The rise in price which it occasioned of corn, produced a rise in wages and, as such a rise of wages was followed by a lowering of the rate of profit which manufactures could derive from their capital, it depressed the progress of the accumulation of agricultural capital; but what was of more importance it seemed to make it more advantageous to the owners of it to transfer it to foreign countries, and employ it there, than to continue to employ it here. This was the way in which the stability of the British manufacturers was the most exposed to he shaken. It was not by allowing artisans to go to foreign countries, or machinery to go to foreign countries, that we incurred any risk; but it was by making it more profitable to employ English manufacturing capital abroad than in England, that a real danger was created of losing the superiority that British manufactures now had in competition in foreign markets with foreign manufactures. The hon. member had spoken of our commercial connection with foreign countries, as if our Corn-laws had pro-
104
duced no inconvenience to our manufactures; but, in this respect, he was quite mistaken. Every country that exported corn had taken umbrage at our having excluded their corn, and had retaliated by raising the duties on the importation of our manufactures. What took place in America in 1823 was particularly in point. The grand and only popular argument of the supporters of the new tariff in America, in that year, was entirely bottomed on the Corn-laws of England. "England," it was said, "is now deluging the Union with manufactured goods, but will she take our raw produce in exchange? Is there any reciprocity in her proceedings? Has she admitted a single bushel of foreign corn, the staple product of our country into her markets during the last three years? Is it not absurd, then, to expect to continue your commerce with a nation acting on such exclusive principles? Ought we not rather to profit by her example; and, as she excludes our corn, does not sound policy dictate the propriety of excluding her manufactures, and of raising up an internal manufacturing population in the Union, sufficient to take off the surplus produce of our agriculturists." Here, then, was decisive evidence of the direct inquiry which the restricting of the importation of foreign corn produced to the public interest. In regard to what the. hon. member had said of the necessity of sustaining high rents, in order that the taxes might be paid, if what he had advanced was true, that the additional price of corn produced by protection served to diminish the national capital and wealth, the consequence of that protection, as to the public Revenue, must be, to diminish the produce of the taxes; as that would always be in proportion to the general wealth of the country. The hon. baronet concluded by saying, that he was sorry the hon. member for Aberdeen had proposed his plan to take effect so soon as the 1st of next July. He considered it a better plan than that proposed by ministers; but, seeing that the existing law was one of prohibition, he thought a longer time ought to be allowed for making so great a change, and therefore he could not vote for the amendment.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, he could not concur in the amendment of his hon. friend; but his dissent arose, not upon the amount of duty proposed by his hon, friend, but

105
because he objected to a fixed duty, of whatever amount, under any circumstances; and he trusted that the House would not support resolutions, which would be applicable in times of scarcity. Another objection to a fixed duty was, that it frequently happened, that a year of scarcity in this country was a year of scarcity in France; and, in that case, both countries would be competitors in the markets of Poland; and the fixed duty proposed by his hon. friend must lessen the quantity of foreign corn which could be brought into this country. The hon. member here mentioned the years of scarcity between 1794 and 1825, and, having mentioned one year, during which the price of corn rose as high as 177 s., asked the House, whether they could sanction resolutions which would impose a duty of 10 s. per quarter, even if corn should again reach that excessive price? His own opinions upon the measures proposed by government remained unchanged; but, he must admit, that those measures appeared to him to proceed upon a better principle than the resolutions of his hon. friend. For these reasons he should vote against the amendment.
Mr. Crippssaid, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that we ought not to expose ourselves to a foreign market, because the cultivation of poor land might cost a little more than that of rich land. For his part, he had not the good fortune to possess much land, but he thought the corn question had been fairly settled, and he should therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. Warburton did not think that the single inconvenience which had been Pointed out by the hon. member for Bridgenorth was a sufficient argument against the amendment of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He thought, that a greater inconvenience would result from regulating the duty inversely, than from a fixed duty. He looked upon the question as a choice of difficulties, and as that of the hon. member for Aberdeen appeared to him to be the lesser one, he should vote for it. The Home divided; For the original Resolution 140; For the Amendment 16; Majority 124.

List of the Minority.

Bernal, Ralph Cave Otway

Birch, Joseph Davies, col.

Folkestone, lord Nugent, lord

Harvey, D. W. Rancliffe, lord

Howick, lord Thompson, C. P.

Lushington, Dr. Wood, ald.

Maberly, John

Maberly, W. L. TELLERS.

Marshall, John Hume, Joseph

Monck, J. B. Warburton, Henry

SPRING GUNS BILL.
The report of this bill being brought up,
Lord Belfast rosefor the purpose of moving that a clause be added prohibiting the extension of the principle of the bill to Ireland. The noble lord began by observing, that Ireland was unhappily not so far advanced in civilization as England; and that therefore those measures of legislation, which might be perfectly justifiable when applied to this country, were, in some cases, by no means fitted for the state of society in the sister kingdom. If a man went into a wood there, it was not so much for the purpose of poaching, as with an intent to destroy or steal the timber. If a thief broke into a dwelling-house, it was not so much for the purpose of taking money, as of carrying away fire-arms. Much additional protection was therefore necessary to the inhabitants of that country; and he certainly thought that the government were culpably negligent in not providing more effectually for the safety of those whose interests were committed to their care. The noble lord then alluded to a circumstance which had occurred in the county of Tipperary, on that very night week; and which, he contended, shewed clearly the necessity of a continuance of the protection of Spring-guns to Ireland. About ninety acres of land had been ploughed up by the nightly legislators in the neighbourhood of Thomastown. Between four and five hundred attended; several hundred shots were fired, and an incessant discharge of fire-arms kept up during the whole night. On the next day a notice was served on Mr. Smithwick, the owner of the land, to the following effect—" Notice is hereby given to Black Jack Smithwick, if he does not immediately give the wood and road-fields to the distressed poor for potatoe ground, at a moderate rent, he will meet with the fate of Baker, and Farrel's wife. Any person who stops up those sods, will meet with the loss of his life; and if you do not comply with this, we will shoot your stock, burn your dairy-house, men, and milk-women. This is enough—Given at

107
the Council-room by the Provider of the Poor—ROCK." Now, he contended, that when the matter at issue was, as it appeared at present to be, the preservation of life, that House was justified in granting a permission to make use of more than ordinary means of defence. As to the bill itself, he could not, he confessed, agree with its hon. mover that it would be the means of preventing the effusion of blood. When men in parties of ten or twenty were, by the removal of the ordinary methods of defence, to be brought into hostile contact with each other so frequently as they must be, he very much feared that the provocation to the effusion of blood would be much increased, and the number of the sufferers from breaches of the Game-laws by no means diminished. He had thought it fit to make these few observations, and he now begged to move a clause, that the hill may not extend to Ireland.
Mr. J. Grattancertainly did not expect to hear, among the charges brought against the government of Ireland, that it had failed in its duty, from neglecting to plant Spring-guns. He could not agree with the noble lord, that Spring-guns could be any protection to woods in that country. On the contrary, he thought it very probable, that if it was once known that there were Spring-guns planted in a wood, the fact would be an incentive to the people to set fire to that wood, and destroy it altogether. In the county of Wicklow, where he resided, there were very extensive woods; and he could say with safety, that they were never injured in any way, although no Spring-guns were planted in them. The people of Ireland were, he was sorry to say, guilty of great negligence in the performance of the ordinary duties of life; and he was convinced that, from forgetfulness and other causes, the use of Spring-guns to any extent in that country would be productive of the most lamentable results to the innocent, as well as prove a means of adding greatly to the outrages already too prevalent.
Mr. Spring Ricealso opposed the clause, and contended, that so far from declaring, as the noble lord would by his motion wish them to declare, that Spring-guns should be used where they had not been used before, they should rather do every thing in their power to abolish the practice altogether.
Mr. Secretary Peelhoped the noble lord would not press his notion. The effect of it would be to make that House declare itself as permitting the use of Spring-guns in certain cases, at the very time when the legality of the use of them in any case was more than questionable.
Lord Belfast,as there appeared to be a feeling in the House hostile to the clause consented to withdraw it.
The report was agreed to.

GENERAL TURNPIKE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir T. Lethbridgemoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report upon the General Turnpike Act Amendment bill.
Mr. Baringdeclared himself hostile to the principle of the bill. Nothing could be more monstrous than the powers which it proposed to give the commissioners, to sell and exchange, and barter and dispose of, the property of parishes to suit their ideas of convenience or propriety. The commissioners of Turnpike Trusts had too much power already, and he must, unless some very strong ground was shewn, oppose any attempt to give them more. He had given himself the trouble to inquire rather minutely into the circumstances under which the bill came before them, and he understood it arose solely from the failure of an attempt to shut up an old road near the hon. baronet's country residence. His informants were very respectable men; and their testimony had been corroborated by the hon. baronet's colleague before whom the matter came, as a magistrate, at quarter sessions. He believed, indeed, that but for that failure the House would never have heard of the hon. baronet's attempt to amend the Turnpike-laws.
Sir T. Lethbridgerepelled, with some warmth, the insinuations of the, hon. member, that he was actuated by any selfish motives in bringing the bill under the consideration of the House. He was surprised that the hon. member, who seemed to have taken his instructions from a paper which had been circulated pretty freely in the vicinity of the House, could lend himself to such charges, without first making himself better acquainted with their truth. The paper to which he alluded he could trace to a party, whose conduct he did not hesitate to pronounce base and scandalous, and whose assertions he could prove, if he thought it worth his while, to be mean,

109
false, and malicious. He had no hesitation, in saying, that he was confident he could, if he pleased, have induced the House to vindicate, by its privileges, the character of one of its members, as falsely and injuriously assailed. The whole of the paper was, he repeated, a foul misrepresentation; and he did not envy the feelings of the hon. member for Callington, when he thought it fit to allude to the circumstances it detailed, as likely to influence his judgment in bringing in the present bill. As to his hon. colleague, if he had any statement to make, he ought to have been present in that House, to put them in possession of his information from his place. He once more asserted, that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge, that he was at all influenced by any private feeling in the discharge of a public duty. The hon. baronet then entered into a defence of the bill, and contended, that so far from giving any new power to the commissioners of Turnpike-trusts, it was merely declaratory, and in explanation, of two immensely long and obscure statutes, the 3rd and 4th of Geo. 4th, both of which gave the very same power of selling and exchanging to which the hon. member so strongly objected. He concluded by declaring, that the whole of the statement of the hon. member was false; not as regarded him, but with reference to the authority from which he received his information.
Mr. Baringexpressed himself very unwilling to give offence to the hon. baronet, and very sorry if he had stated what was not true; but he had received his information from some of the most respectable men in Somersetshire. The hon. baronet did not deny that the matter had been before the quarter-sessions. The fact was, that the commissioners having made a new line of road over the hon. baronet's property, wished to shut the old one, but the inhabitants resisted that measure, on the ground that there were a great many avenues from that line to various farms and grounds, which must be consequently shut up too: and the quarter-sessions, upon being appealed to, confirmed the propriety of the resistance. The hon. baronet said, the act gave no new power: he was not well versed in such things, but he found on referring to the old act, that it gave a power, in the case of making a new line of road, to sell or break up
110
the old one, subject, however, to the very right of avenue or way to which he had alluded. Now, he apprehended, that the hon. baronet's object was to get rid of that clause; and if he saw good grounds for thinking that it was inconvenient, and ought to be repealed, or that the acts were so voluminous and obscure that they could not be properly construed, he would recommend him, instead of pushing forward the present bill, to move for a committee to examine the whole of the acts, in order to have them consolidated and amended after the recess.
Mr. Criersagreed with the hon. member, that it would be better to withdraw the present bill; which could only be said to add another to those statutes which were already too voluminous. By the labour of a committee, he thought he might very well be in a situation to submit a proposal after Easter, for the consolidation of the whole of the Turnpike-laws.
Mr. R. Gordondid not think it right, that the House should govern its opposition or consent to any measure by a reference to the hon. baronet's disputes with his neighbours in the country. He would recommend him to withdraw the bill, and move for a committee. if that committee examined the subject as it ought, he hoped that it would take into its consideration the expense of Turnpike-acts, and adopt some measure by which they might be made public instead of private bills. At present they were private bills, in force for a term of only twenty-one years; so that at the end of that time the whole of the enormous expense attendant upon their enactment was to be incurred anew.
Mr. F. Lewisstrongly recommended, in preference to the present measure, the consolidation of the laws on the subject. The system of Turnpike-roads in this country became every day more and more important. When it was considered that the commissioners of the roads were empowered to tax the people to the amount of a million and a half annually, and that until the recent act of parliament they could not be called to account for the manner in which they expended the money, it was evident that the whole was a tremendous machine, which called loudly for legislative regulation. The proper nature of that regulation, however, so as at once to render the system one of greater facility, and to check the abuse of it, could be considered only in a committee above

111
stairs. The matter could not be accomplished in the present session; but if the hon. baronet would withdraw his bill, he would endeavour, by the next session, to prepare a consolidation of the existing laws, for the purpose of submitting it to the consideration of a committee above stairs.
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that with the understanding that the hon. gentleman would next session move to refer all the laws on the subject to a committee above stairs, he was quite ready to withdraw his bill.
Mr. F. Lewisobserved, that it would be impracticable to attempt to do any thing in the present session.
Sir T. Lethbridgethen intimated, that he would withdraw his bill.