Sitting of 17 May 1814

EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Mr. Creeveyrose, pursuant to notice, to move for the production of a copy of a letter from the earl of Buckinghamshire, president of the Board of Controul, to Robert Thornton, esq. chairman of the East India Company, dated the 12th January last, on the subject of continuing the pensions which had been granted during the existence of the late Act; particularly one of 5,000 l. per annum to lord Wellesley, and another to Warren Hastings, esq. which were now expired. In consequence of this expiration, the president of the Board of Controul had thought proper to write this letter; not merely recommending the continuance of the persons, but even suggesting the propriety of an increase. His reason for moving for the letter was this—he conceived that lord Buckinghamshire had acted in violation both of the spirit and letter of the Act for continuing the charter of the East India Company. There was a clause both in the present and last Act, which expressly stated that no increase of pensions should be granted by the East India Company to their servants, without the ratification of such increase by the Board of Controul. The function of the Board of Controul was thus limited to the approval or disapproval of the increase;

925
but it possessed no power to propose any measure of the kind. In this he conceived lord Buckinghamshire had been guilty of a violation of the act of parliament. It would, in his opinion, be highly improper if the president of the Board of Controul were to possess not only the power of controuling the directors of the Company, and the preventing any misapplication of their funds, but also that of dictating the course which the East India Company ought to follow. But if it was improper that the president of the Board of Controul should dictate to the Company in the case of an increase of pension to their servants, how much more so was it in the case of servants of the crown, who had been in the situation which he then filled? In this letter lord Buckinghamshire stated, that the late lord Melville died much in debt; and that his son, from the most honourable principles, had taken upon himself the payment of those debts, and he recommended that they should grant him 20,000 l. to assist him in that object—that is, he begged the Company to give to another minister of the crown, at the head of the Admiralty, a sum to pay his father's debts. In consequence of this letter, notice had been given of a motion for the grant of the sums so recommended. Now he conceived this to be a gross violation of duty on the part of lord Buckinghamshire. If, however, he was mistaken in this opinion, he thought that the evil was of such a nature as to require some alteration of the Act. It was indeed astonishing to see how the Board of Controul had gradually grown up to its present consequence. When first proposed by Mr. Pitt in 1784, it was stated as a recommendation by him, that the members of the board would do their duty without salary, and that they should have no patronage. The salary of the president, however, had been first issued at 2,000 l. a year, and afterwards raised to 5,000 l. Instead of having no patronage, it turned out on the late enquiry, that the president of the Board of Controul possessed a patronage equal in value to that of the chairman of the East India Company; and at last the president had ventured on sending a message to the Company, recommending them to grant 20,000 l. towards paying the debts of another minister's father. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, That there be laid before this House, copy of a letter from the earl of Buckinghamshire, first commissioner for the affairs of
926
India, to Robert Thornton, esq. chairman of the East India Company, dated the 12th of January 1814, upon the subject of expired pensions under the East India Company.
Mr. Wallacewas of opinion, that no fair parliamentary ground had been stated for the publication of the paper in question, and that any discussion at present would be as premature as it was unprecedented. The letter was of a private nature, merely suggesting the propriety of taking certain matters into consideration. The president could only act officially with the Board of Control, and not with the court of directors; and the letter could impose no duty either upon the directors or upon the proprietors. The hon. gentleman, however, seemed to regard the letter somewhat in the light of a message from the throne, upon which it was incumbent to come to some resolution. That the court of proprietors should be anxious to testify their sense of the merits of the late lord Melville, could be matter of surprise to none who were acquainted with the important services he had rendered to the East India Company.
Sir Mark Woodfully concurred with the last speaker. Though he himself had never received any personal favour from the late lord Melville; yet so highly did he estimate his services to the East India Company, that, if no other gentleman should bring forward a proposition upon the subject, he himself should, in the court of proprietors, move for a further remuneration to the late lord Melville.
Mr. Howorthcontended, that the letter could only be understood to be a public recommendation by the president of the Board of Controul, and that it was meant unduly to influence the court of proprietors. He was informed, he feared too credibly, that the meetings of the Board of Controul had been long suspended; and that all power, patronage, and influence was absorbed by the president. The letter in question was in direct violation of the act of parliament.
Mr. T. Courtenaysaid, the hon. member, in proving that the letter did not bear the sanction of the board, proved that it was actually private. He denied, that the convening of the board was dispensed with; and said, he never signet any paper without the requisite number of signatures by members of the Board of Controul. The letter, he contended, was strictly private. A doubt had arisen relative to

927
the expiration of the Act regarding pensions; and upon this a conversation took place between his noble friend and the chairman of the court of directors. His noble friend, with the frankness which distinguished his character, communicated the same opinion in his letter, which he had expressed in the conversation that had taken place. He denied, that the hon. gent. (Mr. Creevey) had at all entered into the merits of the letter itself, and therefore he had laid no sufficient grounds for its production.
Lord A. Hamiltoninsisted that the letter ought to be produced, whether the House considered the person by whom it was sent, him to whom it was addressed, or the subject comprised in it. If it were indeed a private letter, there was still stronger ground in his view for laying it before parliament; because it must be taken to be a clandestine communication, intended, to produce the effect of a public and official interference.
Mr. Creevey, in reply, observed, that he believed, he had laid an ample parliamentary ground for his motion, when he had shewn that the letter was in contravention of a statute passed by the House. As for the Board of Controul, the places of most of the commissioners were mere sinecures: while he was secretary to it for fourteen months, not one meeting had been held for purposes of deliberation, and he had understood and believed that for 22 year previous the same neglect had been exhibited. The hon. gentleman opposite had been long, longer than any man in parliament, in the enjoyment of one of these sinecures; and Mr. Creevey wished to know whether he had ever voted at any board when any subject for deliberation had been discussed?
Mr. Wallacereplied, without hesitation, that he had.
Mr. Creeveyexpressed his astonishment: he would venture to say, that he had never voted more than once on such an occasion.
Mr. Wallaceobserved that, upon recollection, he could not say that he had voted even once in his life at a board (a laugh); but he had given in his opinion. He remembered one board, however, when there was a vast deal of discussion, but nothing was done. The established practice was, to circulate the papers which they had to consider (and which were very volummous), and take the opinion of each member in writing.
Mr. Sullivansaid, that the letter was
928
surely meant to operate in some way or other. At present, however, he did not conceive it to be tangible, nor did he know in what quarter an application could be made for its production. It would be better to wait to see what would follow.
Mr. Creevey. The letter is in the India-house, and has been printed.
Mr. Whitbread. if we were to wait for what might follow from the letter, gentlemen who opposed, the publication might easily prevent any thing from following. The letter could with no face be said to be private. It had been read at a public meeting; and it appeared from the speech of an hon. baronet (sir M. Wood) that upon him at least it had produced some effect. It would seem, from the language of some hon. gentlemen, that lord Buckinghamshire could at one time resolve himself into a private individual, and at another into president of the Board of Controul. One thing, it appeared pretty plainly, he could not do; and that was, to put the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) upon the India Company proprietary. It would seem, that no boards were assembled, but that all the business was done either by the president or by the secretary. The practice had been to convert letters, to the publication of which there were objections, into private communications; the House of Commons, however, had sometimes decided that those letters were public; and your authority, Sir, (said Mr. Whitbread, addressing the Speaker.) I make no doubt, will quickly cause the letter in question to be produced. He had heard, though he did not pretend vouch for the fact, that a sheet of blank paper had been put over documents that were to be signed, and that the signature had been affixed at the end of the blank.
Mr. Sullivanagain expressed a wish, that the hon. mover, would wait till something should be done in consequence of the letter.
Mr. Creevey. It is my object that nothing may be done in consequence of it.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—For Mr. Creevey's motion, 23; Against it, 62; Majority against the motion, 39.

List of the Minority.

Barnard, lord

Gordon, R.

Brand, hon. T.

Grenfell, P.

Bennet, hon. H.

Horner, F.

Combe, H.

Howorth, H.

Grant, J.P.

Hammersley, H.

929

Lemon, sir W.

Ridley, sir M.

Milton, lord

Russell, lord J.

Macdonald, J.

Smith, W.

Martin, J.

Western, C.

Newport, sir J.

Whitbread, S.

O'Hara, C.

TELLERS.

Phillips, G.

Creevey, T.

Parnell, sir H.

Hamilton, lord A.

CHILD STEALING BILL.
Mr. W. Smith, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to punish the crime of Child Stealing, observed, that it was singular, that this offence, though there was none of greater enormity, was not at all punished by the existing law, unless in those cases where the person stealing a child could be convicted of stealing its clothes. It was surely a great blot on the statute book, that a man might steal a child with impunity, though he could not, without punishment, take the shoes from that child. And, he believed, so far was the system carried, that the judge always directed a jury, in cases of this kind, if any doubt were entertained as to the person accused intending merely to steal the child, and not the clothes (that is, intending to commit the greater and not the less offence), that then they must acquit him. There were three different motives for the stealing of children—First, as was most commonly the case, for the sake of the clothes. In that case the party rarely thought it necessary to take the infant far from the place where the theft was committed, and it was allowed to find its way back as well as it could. He recollected a case that happened a few years ago, where a child was stolen from a professional gentleman, who resided in Westminster. That child was stripped, and left under one of the arches of Westminster-bridge, on a snowy and inclement day, when the tide was flowing. From this situation it contrived to extricate itself. It ascended the steps, and caught hold of the legs of a person who happened to be there, and who restored it to its parent. This instance he stated, to shew how hardened those criminals were who addicted themselves to child-stealing. The offender was convicted in that case, because he had stolen the child's clothes, and sentence was passed on him; but, he was sorry to say, he afterwards received a pardon. Another motive for stealing a child was, that it might be reared up as the offspring of another. A case of this, kind occurred a few years ago, and a Mrs. Delow was tried for the offence.—Now, even though the situation
930
of the fictitious parents was more comfortable than that of the real ones, and, therefore, the child thus improperly carried away, would, perhaps, be introduced into a line of life better than that from which it was taken, still this did not palliate the crime, any more than the argument formerly used, that the negroes were taken from the miseries of their native country, to taste of happiness in the West Indies, justified the Slave Trade. But there was a still worse case than either of these—that was, where children were stolen for the purpose of being sold, either to be carried about, for years, to excite charity, as common beggars, or to be educated to those trades (chimney-sweepers for instance) in which children were still employed. Those who committed an offence of this aggravated description, in consequence of this defective state of the law, must now be acquitted. He had stated his intention of remedying this defect to several learned gentlemen of great weight and authority, all of whom expressed their approval of the measure. A few years ago, a Bill of a similar description was brought in by an hon. friend of his. It passed through the House of Commons, and, in the House of Lords, it advanced to a third reading—from some neglect or other, it was not moved through that stage, and, in consequence, the measure was lost; and, for some private reasons, his hon. friend declined introducing the Bill again. Not being aware of any opposition, he would move—"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the more effectual prevention of Child Stealing."
Mr. Serjeant Onslow, in seconding the motion, said, that his hon. friend deserved the warmest approbation, for having proposed a measure which would cover a class of criminal cases most offensive to human nature, and which were not hitherto provided for. With respect to the directions given by the judges to acquit culprits of this description, they had merely done it in strict conformity with the letter of the law; at the same time that they did violence to their feelings—and deeply lamented the defective state of the criminal code. Such inconveniences arose from the present situation of the law. Looking upon child-stealing as a crime disgraceful to the country at large, and as one of the blackest in the black catalogue of human offences, he heartily supported the motion.
Mr. Peelintimated a wish that Bill should be extended to Ireland.
Mr. W. Smithagreed to the suggestion.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill; which was shortly afterwards brought up by Mr. W. Smith, and read a first time.

ROMAN CATHOLICS.
Sir John Cox Hippisleyrose, in pursuance of a notice he had formerly given, to move for certain papers which tended to elucidate particular points of discipline in the Catholic church. He should be sorry to bring any thing under the consideration of the House, that could lead to a discussion on the Catholic claims; if certain circumstances, which had recently occurred in the sister kingdom, had not, in some measure, rendered such a course necessary. The observations, however, which he intended to make, should only be with reference to the papers for which he was about to move. Gentlemen would recollect, that, in the course of the last session, he moved for a variety of documents, all of which were not printed. They contained information with respect to the discipline of the Catholic church on the continent, as well as in Canada, Malta, and other places connected with his Majesty's dominions. One of the papers he moved for at that time was not printed; and he should now move that it be printed, because it tended to shew the code of regulations which was necessary on two great points; first, with respect to the interference of the crown in the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops in the united kingdom; and next, as to the supervision of such rescripts as might be received from Rome, by any person in Great Britain or Ireland. There was another part of this paper, which related to matter of a graver nature—and, reflecting on what had occurred in the sister kingdom, he thought it necessary to make a few observations on the subject to which it referred; namely, the society of Jesuits. Gentlemen would call to mind what had fallen from him, on a former occasion, with reference to this very subject. A doubt was, he believed, at that time entertained, as to the existence of the sect of Jesuits; but that doubt no longer existed. Now, it had come to his knowledge, that nearly 30,000 l. had been remitted from Rome to Ireland, for the purpose of purchasing lands. Of that money 16,000 l. had been laid out in buying a place called Castle Browne; and, on the scite of Castle Browne, a building had been erected, as a
932
seminary, which was under the superintendence of a professed Jesuit. A gentleman of the name of Browne, well known in the literary world, had written very largely, within a short period, in defence of the Jesuits. He eulogised that body very highly—he spoke of their having establishments in Russia and Naples—and stated, that young men were sent from this country to the society at Naples for their education—that they were there ordained—and afterwards returned to the united kingdom. On the subject of an oath, Mr. Browne observed, that he differed from the common construction of that obligation. He held it to be 'secundum intentionem deponentis,' and not 'secundum intentionem juramenti.' This gentleman argued very strenuously, that the order of Jesuits ought, if possible, to be established in every part of Europe. On the subject of the introduction of the order into Ireland, he had received a letter, fully confirming the fact, from which he would read an extract:—"It is," said the writer, "a plain fact, that the society of Jesuits have purchased Castle Browne, and are about to establish themselves among us. What their object is, I know no more than you do; for they are not remarkable for disclosing their designs. There is, however, quite enough to alarm the British world." This letter was very lately received from Ireland, and he thought it his duty to lay it before the House. Knowing the restrictions that were placed on the Catholic clergy in non-Catholic, and even in Catholic countries, it was for the House to mark, with serious attention, the novel spectacle of synods, composed of Catholic bishops and Catholic priests, established, he would say, contrary to law, in Ireland. He knew many gentlemen differed from him in opinion that they were contrary to law, but still he felt himself warranted in making the assertion. Surely he need not point out the danger of such assemblies, sitting from time to time, and propounding measures which were afterwards to be discussed in parliament. Those who had read the Dublin papers lately would perceive that he was not distorting facts. In those papers they were told what the clergy were about to do; from them they understood, that the second order of the church in Ireland were determined to oppose the rescript recently received from Rome. He meant not to make any specific motion on this subject. But he

933
hoped the House, being apprised of these circumstances, would not lose sight of the results that might be expected from the continuance of such a system. He also trusted, that they were alive to the conduct of another assembly; he meant the Catholic board, who had been pleased to appeal to the Spanish Cortes for their interference. For what purpose did they approach the Cortes? To tell them how much the Roman Catholics of Ireland were oppressed by this government, which was acting at the time in conjunction with that of Spain. What effect could this have, but to impress upon the minds of the Spanish people, that the noble duke, who had so often fought their battles, and who had so lately received the thanks of that House, was the enemy of the Catholic religion—of the religion of Spain? This appeal was made to the most intolerant nation under the sun—who looked upon their own as the only true religion—and had made every member of the Cortes swear to preserve that religion. If they looked to the regulations of the Spanish government anterior to the late constitution, they would find that no person was suffered to hold a situation, civil or military, unless he professed the Catholic religion. And yet, the Catholic board thought proper to complain to the Cortes, that they were not admitted to a participation in all situations, civil and military. There was another measure of this board which he could not avoid noticing; and, in doing so, it was but just that he should applaud the conduct of the Catholic clergy, in refusing to lend themselves to the task which the board had endeavoured to impose upon them. He alluded to the collection of what were called donations. A minimum was fixed, below which nothing would be taken—and a mark, it seemed, was to be placed on every Roman Catholic, who either could not, or would not, subscribe ten-pence. This proposition originated with a member of the Catholic board; but he believed that it had not been very productive. The right hon. baronet then adverted to the indignation that had been expressed by some of the Roman Catholic clergy, at the proposition, formerly made, for supporting, them by a state provision; and observed, that one of those persons, who was most loud in reprobating such a system, who had declared that the Catholic clergy ought to give up all worldly advantages for spiritualities, had himself, however, applied
934
for a state provision. He had prevented others receiving a pension from the crown; and yet he afterwards caused a petition to be drawn up, for the purpose of presenting it to his Majesty's ministers, requesting a pension for himself. And he had even applied to him (sir J. C. Hippisley) for his assistance and co-operation, being aware that he had been instrumental in procuring some relief for the suffering ecclesiastics of Scotland. The letter lately received was nothing more than an acknowledgment of those principles which were acted upon in every state—and the papers for which he should move were extremely essential, as proving the existence of what he termed a code; from which it would be seen, that the two regulations he had mentioned in the early part of his speech were allowed to exist in every state of Europe, with the full concurrence of the church of Rome. This he stated upon the fullest authority—having resided on the spot, and been in confidential communication with individuals of great eminence, who never resisted the adoption of the principle. He would not then enter into a comparison of the rescript received from Rome a few days ago, with that transmitted to this country in 1805—but he would call the attention of the House to the extraordinary state in which Dublin, and perhaps Ireland, at that moment was, in consequence of the receipt of that rescript. That situation was sufficiently pointed out by the public prints; and unless government looked very closely to the proceedings in that country (where a board existed, affecting and exercising so great a sway), and adopted those measures which the exigency of the time called for, consequences of a very serious nature must necessarily arise. The hon. baronet then moved, "That the Extract of paragraphs 42 and 43, from sir George Prevost's Instructions as governor and commander in chief in Lower Canada, dated 22d October 1811, which was presented to the House upon the 21st day of July, in the last session of parliament, be printed."
Mr. Bathurstseconded the motion.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that, the hon. baronet having stated, that a sum of money, amounting to 30,000 l. was transmitted from Rome to Ireland, for the purpose, of establishing the Jesuits in that country, he felt it his duty to relate the fact which had given rise to the assertion. The hon. baronet had been for some time harping

935
on the re-establishment of the society of Jesuits—and the person, whose character was in some degree implicated by his observations, begged of him (sir H. Parnell) to state the object and circumstances relating to the seminary alluded to. That individual had put into his (sir Henry's) hands a prospectus of his establishment; and the whole object which it aimed at was neither more nor less than the education of young persons. It did not even exclude those of the Protestant religion. The hon. baronet, in the whole course of his speech, had not stated, to the House any one circumstance which could induce them to believe, that any thing farther was contemplated by the gentleman of whom he had spoken, than merely to establish a school. Every gentleman, be thought, must perceive the absurdity of supposing, at that time of day, that any danger could, be apprehended from the re-establishment of the Jesuits; or that any person could be weak enough to set on foot a measure of that kind. It appeared almost impossible, when they considered how very few of that sect were now in existence, and how much opinions upon religious topics had changed of late years. On that head, therefore, he apprehended no danger and certainly the hon. baronet had not attempted to prove that it was against the law of the land-to set up a seminary such as that contemplated by the gentleman whose motives had been thus distorted. The proceeding was justifiable and legal; and, therefore, there was no necessity to have recourse to any measure for putting down that institution. Why should they go back to the conduct of their forefather, and say, because a gentleman happened to be educated in a college of Jesuits, that therefore he should be prevented from setting up a school in Ireland?
Mr. Peelsaid, that though the hon. baronet had given notice of his motion, yet, as it was simply for the production of instructions, to sir George Prevost, the House could be little prepared from such a notice for the discussion of those important topics to which the hon. baronet had adverted, and from, any reference to which at present he should as far as possible abstain. He merely rose, less it should be imagined, if he continued entirely silent, that the Irish government had not paid serious attention to those subjects on which the hon. baronet had particularly dwelt. On one point he
936
thought it necessary to make a few observations, because the hon. baronet had alluded to it in the last session. In consequence of what the hon. baronet had stated respecting the establishment of a college at Castle Browne, supposed to have for its object the renewal of the order of Jesuits in Ireland, and other representations which had reached him, he had solicited a communication with Mr. Kenny, the head of that seminary. He had accordingly seen that gentleman, and had stated to him that reports had gone abroad, much exaggerated, perhaps, as to the nature of the institution over which he presided—observing, that it would be good policy in him (which he admitted) to explain precisely the object of his institution. From him he learned, that it was not a religious, but a lay institution; and Mr. Kenny put into his hands a prospectus of the course of education. Mr. Peel asked him, whether it was confined exclusively to persons professing the Roman Catholic religion; as in that case doubts might be entertained of the legality of the institution. To this Mr. Kenny answered; that the college of Maynooth, which was exclusively Catholic, was recognized as a legal seminary; but observed, that his institution was not confined to Roman Catholics. He would willingly admit the children of Protestants to participate in the general course of education, leaving, to their parents the right of giving them such religious instruction as they might think proper. At the same time, he doubted how far the principle of educating Protestant children at a seminary chiefly Catholic, would be generally approved of.—Mr. Kenny stated that the institution was carried on by him, not as agent for any other persons, but on his own account. To a question respecting the source from which he had derived his funds, that gentleman had given no answer. He (Mr. P.) had then told him, that he was not to infer from the communication which had passed, that the Irish government acquiesced in the existence of the institution, but that they should continue to watch it with jealousy.
Sir John Newportsaid, that, in the year 1806 or 7 (he could not exactly state which), a communication was made to him, that the present archbishop of Dublin had refused to licence an individual who was then about to establish a seminary. His grace did not refuse from any personal feeling, for he was perfectly acquainted

937
with the excellent moral character of the man; but be declined signing the licence—he entertained doubts of the propriety of a Protestant bishop licensing a Roman Catholic school. He (sir John) stated the circumstance to the then administration, and the individual was allowed to proceed with his undertaking. Some observations were made on the subject; and, in consequence, he looked into the statute-book; and there he could see nothing whatever to prevent the individual from keeping a school. Now he could not see what objection could be raised against the conduct of Mr. Kenny. He laid open the whole course of education which he taught—he was desirous of no concealment. Why then should he be molested? For his own part, he considered it, as he had always done, a most beneficial thing for the public, that education could be provided at home, for those who must otherwise seek it in foreign countries. It was a matter, in his opinion, of very great importance, to give, both to the clergy and the laity, a domestic education. He knew nothing of the gentleman to whom the remarks of the hon. baronet were applied; but his ready offer to lay every thing connected with his institution open to government, ought to wipe away all suspicion from his character. At all events, he would deprecate, in the strongest terms, the introduction, on a question of an entirely different nature, of any reflections on the character and conduct of a man, who had no opportunity of defending himself. Fortunately, however, when the hon. baronet made his observations, there were gentlemen in the House who were not unacquainted with the circumstances of the case; but, for any thing the hon. baronet knew at the time, this might not have been the case.
Sir H. Parnellwished to observe, that Mr. Kenny's reason for refusing to state whence he derived the funds for commencing the establishment, was because he conceived that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) was not altogether well entitled to catechise him on his private affairs. As a British subject, he had a right to set up the institution, and to proceed as he thought proper, provided he did nothing which appeared dangerous to the state. He willingly answered every question which was at all connected with the public interest; but when the right hon. gentleman went so far as to inquire into the means by which he made the
938
purchase, which was penetrating directly into his prime affairs he felt that it was not proper for him to give an answer. He had, however, told him (sir Henry), that the whole had been purchased with his own private property; that he acted from his own individual motives, and wished to conduct himself peaceably and properly.
Mr. Peelsaid, he had not asked any question of Mr. Kenny in a tone that evinced a desire to catechize him—nor, was any one of his interrogatories dictated by a spirit of idle curiosity. He had not premised his questions, by stating that his institution was contrary to law; he merely observed, that doubts of its legality had been expressed in parliament. He also informed Mr. Kenny, that the utmost jealousy had been manifested of the society of the Jesuits by the British government; so much so, that their property in Canada had been formerly confiscated. He asked the question relative to the funds of the establishment, and made the observation he had done, lest it might be hereafter inferred, because some communication had passed with a member of the Irish government, that that government had acquiesced in the propriety of the establishment in question.—At the interview he had with Mr. Kenny, he particularly told him, that he must not be surprised if the same feeling which had induced the British government to confiscate the property of the Jesuits in Canada, should induce them at least to watch with the almost vigilance and suspicion an institution established and superintended by one of the order, supported by funds, the origin and nature of which were totally unaccounted for.
Sir J. Newportdenied that the property, of the Jesuits in Canada was confiscated. They were prevented from professing any more persons in that country—but they were allowed to enjoy then property as long as they existed. And it was a remarkable fact, that one of them, who survived all the others, possessed the whole of the property for a considerable time.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the order was effectually put down.
Sir J. Newportsaid, the property was enjoyed by the individual he alluded to until the very last moment of his life.
Sir J. C. Hippisleycontended, that the property of the Jesuits had been confiscated in Canada by the order of the Canadian government, and that this property had

939
been since granted to lord Amherst. He contended also, that, according to the Bull of Pope Ganganelli which ordered the universal abolition of the Jesuits, who were, in fact, much more devoted to their own general than to the Pope, all Christian countries, whether Catholic or Protestant, must feel it their interest to discountenance such an institution. All Christian states had indeed manifested their sense of this interest; and it behoved the government of England to look with peculiar care to the institution under discussion; especially when it was known that such a considerable sum had been found to support it, and that sum too derived from some source which the principal of the institution refused to reveal. He (sir J.) could not help declaring his regret, that gentlemen of great weight and character in that House had thought proper to decline expressing any objection to the establishment alluded to. Upon the character of the Jesuits he did not think it necessary to state any opinion, nor to call to the recollection of the House the jealousy which all the free and independent states of Europe had manifested against that order. But he must again caution the British government to be on its guard. For the moral character and general good disposition of the present Pope, he professed the highest respect. But the Jesuits had always been found a powerful means of influence, a formidable band of intriguers; and he therefore would wish to protect his country against the fiat of any Pope, for the resurrection and reorganization of such an order.
The motion was agreed to. The hon. baronet then moved, "That the several papers which were presented to this House in the two last sessions of parliament, relating to the Roman Catholics, and which were severally ordered to be printed on the 28th day of May 1812, and on the 4th, 17th, 21st, 24th, and 25th days of May 1813, be re-printed." Agreed to.

CORN TRADE.
On the motion of Mr. Foster for the re-committal of the Report respecting the Corn Trade,
Sir J. Newportexpressed his conviction, that the most persuasive arguments had been adduced to shew that it was the policy of this country to guard its home agriculture by providing against the free import of foreign corn. If it were asked, whether it was necessary to alter the arrangements of 1804, or provide any additional
940
guard for our agriculture, as that agriculture had since increased, he should answer that this, increase was not owing to those arrangements, but to the peculiar nature of our relations with foreign states. Besides, it was now impossible to put the agriculturists in the same state that they were in in 1804, as so many additional burthens had been since imposed upon them; would it then be fair to expose them to competition in their own market with foreign agriculturists, after having incurred those very burthens—after becoming subject to such a weight of taxation for the deliverance of Europe, for the advantage of foreign states, in order to relieve them from the calamities of wars? Such a proposition would, indeed, be utterly destitute of common justice, as to allow a foreigner, armed with the security which Great Britain had purchased for him by twenty years war, to undersell the British trader in his own market. In fact, the principles of a free trade could not be fairly applied to the question of corn, especially after those principles had been departed from with regard to our other manufactures. Our woollen manufacture, for instance, was protected against the competition of any foreigner whatever in our own market, and why should not our corn meet an equal protection? It was alledged, that the proposed arrangement would serve to impose a permanent tax upon the consumer; but he denied the justice of this allegation. If, however, it were even true, he should have no hesitation to assert, that it would be for the interest of the consumer to pay that tax in order to secure the advantages of that steady supply, and independency of any foreign state, which the measure promised. As to the argument, that the tendency of this measure would be to throw capital unnaturally into agriculture, he thought it quite untenable, as the only probable result would be to recover for agriculture, which formed the most solid wealth of a nation, that capital which had been heretofore diverted from it by an undue partiality to manufactures. But the advantages which the proposed arrangement held out to Ireland were incalculable. In that country, the interests of which were completely identified with those of Great Britain, not above one-fourth of the people were employed in manufactures, the remainder being wholly dependent on agriculture or pasturage; and there agriculture had of late years made very considerable

941
advance; insomuch, indeed, that it had exported a vast quantity of corn to this part of the empire. Would it then be fair or wise to impede the prosperity of that country? But if such impediment were really offered, what must be the state of things between the two countries? Ireland at present took the manufactures of England, and paid for them in corn. It indeed prohibited any manufacturer from entering into competition with that of England in the Irish market. Its duties with a view to that prohibition were, upon woollen, as 50 to 1 in favour of England—upon hardware as 33 to 10—upon glass as 33 to 10, and so on in proportion upon earthenware and other articles of English manufacture. Would it then be an equitable return towards Ireland, to withhold due encouragement from that agriculture which enabled it to pay for such articles—which enabled it, especially of late years, to become the best customer of England? In fact, if that encouragement were refused, he could not conceive how the Irish people were to pay those absentee rents which formed so severe a drain upon that country. These absentee rents, however, were spent in England; which thus profited, in every point of view, by the improving industry of Ireland. To the interest of that country, he therefore trusted that the House would look with peculiar solicitude; and nothing could contribute so materially to that interest as the encouragement of agriculture, to which the Irish were peculiarly disposed, and which was so much more calculated than pasturage, or perhaps even manufactures, to promote morality, industry, and good order.
Mr. Burrellsaid, that many gentlemen seemed to conceive that corn was the only thing which ought to be lowered in price. He would wish to know whether any of them had found out a way to lower the price of all other commodities in the same proportion. Our farmers were loaded with taxes on land, horses, leather property tax, and tithes, beyond what the farmers of other nations were subject to. If corn that was subject to none of those duties were allowed to come free into our market, this country would soon be over-whelmed with corn from the continent. When had from official accounts a statement of the rapid increase of agriculture in Ireland, were we to check her prosperous career? The agriculturists of this country did not ask for monopoly;
942
they only wanted protection. They did not want to raise the price of the loaf upon the poor, but they wanted to be preferred to foreigners in their own markets.
Sir H. Parnellrose to endeavour to prove that the accusations preferred against him as chairman of the committee on the corn trade, by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) were not well founded. He hoped he should also be able to show to the House, that the right hon. gentleman had himself fallen into some very great mistakes. The Report of the Committee had been described by the right hon. gentleman, in the pamphlet which he had published under the title of his speech, as taking a very superficial view of the subject. This he denied. The Report contained the average prices of corn for 146 years; a view of the laws relating to the subject for 150 years; and an account of the documents respecting imports and exports for 117 years. In the speech which the right hon. gentleman had published, there was something which he (sir H. Parnell) must take the liberty to say, had not been said by the right hon. gentleman in the House. In the House, the right hon. gentleman had said, that the committee had taken their prices from Eton College records; but in his publication, though he admitted that they had correctly taken them from the Eton records, he maintained that the deductions drawn from those records were not correctly made, [see p. 675.] The right hon. gent. then, gave a statement of what the prices should have been; and here he committed a very great error. In taking the prices from the Eton College records, as the prices were marked in them from the finest grain in the market, it was necessary to deduct from the price on the records two-ninths altogether. Whereas, the right hon. gentleman had only deducted one-ninth. The right hon. gentleman also accused the committee of being in error as to the tables given in the Report. The fact was, that these tables had been taken from the work of Mr. Chalmers, whose accuracy even the right hon. gentleman had admitted. Another accusation was, that the committee had only referred to seven of the acts of parliament on the subject of the corn trade; whereas, in truth, they referred to nine of these acts. In his whole speech, the right hon. gentleman had not been, able to shew that there was any act of parliament of importance on the subject which had not been referred to by the committee.

943
The committee were blamed for the eulogium they pronounced on the Act of the 17th of Charles 2, although the very words of the committee in praise of this Act were those used by Dr. Adam Smith. The committee had applied the words of the same great authority to the Act of William the third. The hon. bart. was proceeding to repel the accusations of Mr. Rose; when
Sir M. Woodrose to order; and observed, that if the hon. baronet went on attacking the pamphlet, they would have an hour's reply from the right hon. gentleman in defence of it. [A laugh.] Besides, it was taking the House unfairly; as many members had comedown expecting the amendment of an hon. member to be proposed.
Sir H. Parnellcontinued, by observing that the statements of the right hon. gentleman were absolutely erroneous; and that he had failed, in every instance, in fixing any inaccuracy upon the labours of the committee. He contended, that no committee had ever taken more pains to produce a well-digested and correct Report.
Mr. Rosesaid, he was sorry that the objections of the hon. baronet had not been brought forward earlier; as he unfortunately laboured under such a severe cold, that he doubted whether he could render himself audible to the House. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. baronet, he had not satisfied him (Mr. Rose) that he had fallen into a single mistake. He was still of opinion, that such a report had never been presented to parliament upon so grave and important a subject. As to the statement in the pamphlet, that the first Resolution belonged wholly to the hon. baronet, the only mistake he had committed in that was, that be had not been gifted with the power of prophecy; for when the assertion was made, no other person, except the hon. baronet, had addressed the House upon that proposition. With regard to the Eton tables, if the hon. baronet had read his speech, he would have found the reason stated, why he (Mr. Rose) had deducted only one ninth, instead of two. He had applied to the Registrar of Eton College, and had received from him a certificate, which, if he had anticipated the objections that were made, be could have brought in his pocket; from which it appeared that the wheat supplied at the Eton market was not the best wheat, but what was called the middling wheat; and therefore, the second ninth ought not be deducted in
944
reducing the Eton to the statute measure. He should not trouble the House with replying minutely to what had been advanced by the hon. baronet, but content himself with stating his firm conviction, that in every thing which he had brought forward in his speech, he was borne out by facts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersubmitted, whether it would not be better, as the question respecting the report which the hon. baronet defended, had been already decided, that the House should resolve itself into the committee in which, the right hon. gentleman had given notice that he intended to propose a new resolution.
The House then resolved itself into the committee.
The second, Resolution, for prohibiting the importation of corn, except under the scale suggested by Mr. Huskisson, was then read from the chair; when
Mr. Fosterrose, and observed, that the main object which the House had in view was, to increase the quantity of corn in this country, and to prevent the necessity of applying to a foreign market for supplies. In former times, Great Britain, by the wisdom of the measures which she pursued, had completely obviated all necessity for the importation of corn. Her agriculture was then encouraged and promoted, and means were taken to prevent a competition in the market, by the produce of other countries. Within the last half century, however, the policy of the state seemed to have been completely changed; and instead of being independent of, our very existence had depended upon, foreign states; our agricultural interests had been neglected; and those wise maxims, which had produced such beneficial effects among our ancestors, had been totally abandoned. The folly of this course had now been carried home to the breast of every thinking man; and it was clear, that the best course which could be pursued, would be to go back to the old original principles, by which so much real advantage had been gained towards upholding the agricultural prosperity of the kingdom: we should see that a fair profit was allowed to the farmer; and that he was not met in the market by those who, possessing advantages superior to him, were enabled, by selling their commodity at a cheaper rate, totally to exclude him from all opportunity of reaping the fruits of his industry. In the year 1670, when a prohibitory Act was introduced, the price at which corn

945
was allowed to be imported was 2l. 13 s. 4d. which, with the duty of 8s. made the price below which no importations were allowed, 3l. 1s. 4d. per quarter, and this had the effect of completely preserving the landed interest of the country. In any legislative measure which might be adopted with the same view at the present period, however, it should be recollected, that the value of money was considerably altered; and the same rules which were then applicable, might not now be productive of an effect equally advantageous. According to the system pursued by our ancestors, the prohibitory price of corn, calculated by the increased power of money, ought to be 7l.. 4s. 4¾d. per quarter; and to this a duty of 1l. 1s. 4d. being added, the real prohibitory price would be 8l. 5s. 8¾d. Gentlemen would be surprised at this amount; but such was really the price at which, according to the alteration in the circumstances of the times, corn ought to be taken, in order to afford a similar encouragement to the agriculturist. He did not mean, however, to propose this as the price upon which the House should fix on the present occasion; at the same time he thought we ought to take the price at such sum as would effectually shut out the foreign grower from interfering with our farmers If corn became scarce he saw no reason why; we should not have recourse to those systems of œconomy which had hitherto been found expedient; and not by a constant fluctuation of prohibitions, and taxes, and bounties, distract the attention of the agriculturist, and prevent him from pursuing that uniform course which would in the end place the country upon the basis of independence which all must desire, and which was essential to the maintenance of our power and dignity. It was curious to examine the multiplicity of measures which had been adopted within the last half century for the regulation of the corn trade. From the year 1765 to 1770, fourteen Acts of this description had been passed—from 1770 to 1780, eight Acts—from 1780 to 1790, seven—from 1790 to 1800, eleven—and from, 1800 to 1813, twelve, in all 52 Acts, in the course of 55 years. With such an accumulation of alterations and changes as these, he would ask, how it was possible for the agriculturist to know what he was about, or to form an idea of what course it would be best for him to pursue, to promote his welfare? How different was the policy of the
946
preceding half century, during the whole of which period only four Acts respecting the regulation of the corn laws had been passed. Could any thing shew more strongly the necessity of conforming the new law to the principles of antient policy—principles which he was prepared to contend, at the same time that they would uphold the interests of the grower, would equally protect the consumer? In enumerating the objectionable Acts which had been passed within the last ten years, he had made a mistake, by including that which had been introduced with respect to Ireland, in 1806. Upon this Act he had heard many eulogiums passed; and he felt it his duty to say, he considered that every Irishman ought to feel infinite gratitude to the right hon. bart. (sir John Newport) who had been its parent. By that Act the interests of Ireland had been promoted in an essential degree; and a practical proof had been given of the policy rather of encouraging our own agriculture, than of looking to other countries for support. After this, he did hope that we should no more hear of sixteen million being sent out of this country to cultivate the wastes and enrich the inhabitants of foreign states. Ireland, he had no doubt, would; if properly encouraged, prove competent to supply all our wants, and to supersede the necessity of importation altogether; and in return, she would be one of the best customers which the country had for her manufactures. In entreating the House to be guided by his suggestions, however, he begged to be understood as not imploring any new boon; all he wanted was, to prevent a retrograde motion in the progress which had been already made towards improvement; and to effect this, be thought he might safely, propose the price 5l. per quarter, as that at which the prohibition might cease. The average price of corn for the last few years had amounted to this sum; and he apprehended it might be safely adopted as one which, while it would effectually guard the interests of the grower, would also prevent the consumer from sustaining any injury whatever. If this sum was thought too high, it was in the power of the House to lower it. His wish was, rather to promote unanimity than to excite discontent; but to the graduated scale he felt the strongest objection; inasmuch as he thought it would tend to promote a degree of complexity and confusion, against which, for every reason, it was desirable

947
to guard. The prices now were regulated by the price in the twelve maritime counties of England. The prices in Ireland were 12 s. lower; so that the British farmer was better protected by 12 s. than the Irish. He would now propose, that the protecting duty should cease and determine when wheat arrived at 100 s.; rye, peas, and beans, at 66 s.; barley at 50 s.; and oats at 33 s. except when imported from our American colonies.
On the question, that the original words stand part of the Resolution,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that there appeared to him to be very little difference of opinion in the House respecting the first and the third Resolutions. The main objection evidently rested upon the second Resolution; and so firmly was he convinced that this ought to be maturely considered, that, rather than consent to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) he should propose to postpone the farther consideration of the whole subject till the next session of parliament. He would appeal to the statute-book for all ages, in proof that no law had ever been introduced which had operated as a distinct and total prohibition of foreign grain. The right hon. gentleman then took a view of the different propositions; anti observed, that though the value of money had considerably diminished of late years, yet for a century before it had been regularly on the increase. But the graduated fall was calculated on the present diminished value, as if that were never to change. On the whole, respecting importation, as we cannot undertake to supply ourselves, we must apportion the price so as to ensure the article at a moderate rate to the consumer. It would be unsafe and unwise permanently to fix any price at present; and even if the scale of his hon. friend were approved of, he should propose that it should only be adopted for a limited time, till its permanent propriety could be ascertained; for if you exclude a part of your supply, you force the whole of the demand upon the remaining part. He viewed the experiment of economy on the prime necessaries of life as a very unwise attempt; but he would agree with the hon. gentleman that nothing was so injurious to agriculture; as unsteady prices; yet it was only by the resolution of parliament to avoid frequent interference with them, that they could be properly regulated. In short
948
the public must learn a great moral lesson: they must be prepared to see, without dissatisfaction, great quantities of corn stowed in warehouses, and even shipped for exportation, when the prices are high; and they must learn to trust, with confidence, to the wisdom of parliament for due and salutary provisions. In every instance, and in all ages, the government had enacted a graduated scale, according to the exigencies which required it.—After answering a variety of objections that had been raised relative to average prices, the right hon. gentleman adverted to what had been said respecting Ireland. It did not appear to him, that Ireland had any reason to complain, as she was put on the same footing as Great Britain; her exports and imports being regulated by the same duty; while the average prices, from whatever country taken, must apply to the whole. If the British prices appeared to be higher than they really were, as relative to Ireland, they would not at all affect the general principles of calculation. But if the right hon. gentleman, wished to have foreign corn excluded altogether, let him say so, and the course to be pursued would be clear. If the graduated scale of duties were adopted, he did not anticipate any very grievous evil to arise from it, even though; there might be some error in the amounts; and he thought it would be best likely to reconcile the feelings of the country with the interests of the farmer. On the whole, in his opinion, the Resolutions now before the House, with the exception already mentioned, seemed to possess all the best principles and ground-works for the regulation of corn; and if they contained no very material error, the attention of parliament might be called to them at any other time. He must take occasion to observe, that the price for years past had been affected by a variety of extraneous circumstances; but the Resolutions before the House would afford stepping stone, if he might so call it, from one scale of prices to another more modern, and more likely to be beneficial. On the grounds which he had stated, he must feel it his duty to dissent from the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. J. P. Grantthought that no proposition could be more plain than this, that the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests of the country were inseparable; and that all of them, as far as the object could be accomplished, ought

949
to be put on an equal footing. The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) treated this question as if it were one on which the House and the country had no experience. He seemed to regard it as if we were in a new situation, one in which we were called on to legislate on a speculative ground; and as if the present was entirely a new case. He (Mr. Grant) entertained great respect for the opinions and authorities of his hon. friends on the other side; but still he must be excused for saying, that he felt much more attached to the evidence of experience; and, if he found that a system had been acted on with success for half a century—when that system was departed from, that contrary effects were produced—when he saw the former system again acted on, and again the same consequences produced—whether these effects necessarily followed from the systems or not, be could not resist the conviction, that there must be a connection between these opposite systems and their effects. He could not help saying, when he saw one system produce happy effects, and another system produce consequences exactly the contrary, that he must regard this as something more than the mere effect of chance. He could not help thinking that gentlemen were bound to shew him, in such a state of things, that there were other reasons which might have produced, and had produced, those effects. To judge of the force of this observation, he should take the averages of certain considerable periods at the different times he had alluded to, and should see what effect the two contradictory systems had, at those various periods, produced on the price of grain. We had no returns of the price of grain prior to the year 1605, when the first return of the price of grain was made. He should state it without making any deduction. The average of the first 11 years was 2l. 1s. 6d. From the year 1620 to 1625 the average price was 2l. 2s. 3d. ⅗ths. During the next ten years the average price was 2l. 10 s. 5d. being one sixth more; and, during the following ten years, the average price was 2l. 17 s. 3d. being about one seventh more: or, during the operation of the system pursued in the reigns of queen and king James, a rise of about 16 s. Then the system was reversed, and a great rise took place in the price of grain; but about the year 1700, the old system was again restored; and between
950
that period and the year 1765, a fall of more, than one fourth took place below the average which had existed before; this old system was again called into operation. So that, notwithstanding the lapse of 160 years, and notwithstanding; the great depreciation of money within that period, the monied price of corn was then exactly the same that it had been 160 years before.—Then, once more, after those laws were again abolished, the average price of corn rose within the first 20 years to 5l. 1s. 9d.; but, deducting for the depreciation of money, to 3l. 16 s. being one half as much again as the average of the former 20 years. So he (Mr. Grant) was entitled to conclude, from what had passed before, during the period of, and since those systems had been acted upon, that those effects to which he had alluded were the necessary consequences of those opposite systems which, had at different periods, prevailed. By the one of those systems our exports increased, and by the other our exports were entirely done away, and the importation of corn increased in a proportionate degree. The variations in this respect were inexplicable in any other way, than as being considered the effects of this change of system. Why our manufactures should increase and prosper while our agriculture was going backward, or vice versa, could only be accounted for on, this principle, that equal advantages were not held out to both. No person could be a more sincere friend than he, (Mr. Grant) was to a free trade; but at the same time he thought that a free trade should be extended equally to all the objects of industry. To the graduated scale proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), he (Mr. Grant) had a strong objection, because it did not fix any precise rule, nor point out to the farmer any distinct point to which he could look for the regulation of his conduct. It was a great error to suppose that the value of land was raised by an increase in the price of corn. It was raised by the increase of the profit of the farmer, and that depended not on the increase of the price of corn, but on the increase of the demand for it. It was so in manufactures. The muslin gown, worn at present, from its cheapness, by a woman of the inferior classes, was one which a lady of rank, in the days of our grandmothers, could scarcely have afforded to purchase. Yet, was the muslin manufacturer of the present

951
day poorer than the muslin manufacturer of former days? No. Because, although the price of his manufacture had so considerably diminished, yet the demand for it had more than proportion-ably increased. His profits, like those of the farmers, depended on the quantity which he could produce, and that again depended on the capital which be was able to employ. It was another error to say that the price of labour depended on the price of corn. America and the Netherlands, as contrasted with Holland, afforded sufficient refutations of this assertion. The price of labour, like the price of every thing else, depended on the demand for it. In times of scarcity labour was cheaper than the average price, and in times of plenty dearer; because in times of scarcity the labourer was compelled to work more, and in times of plenty he was induced to work less, than his average allowance. If the committee would refer to the enquiry made by the House of Lords, in 1812, into the existing distresses of the manufacturing districts, they would find it established by evidence, that those distresses arose, not from the price of corn, but from the want of employment. He was anxious to satisfy the committee that the question before them had nothing to do with the enjoyments of the people, even if the effect of the regulation were to raise the average price of corn, which he was satisfied it would not be. There were two great objects which the legislature ought to have in contemplation on this subject; the first, to keep corn at as steady a price as possible; the second, to supply some fund for occasional deficiencies. He was firmly persuaded, that this country would depend on itself for its supply, and it ought to do so. What hazard could result from making it do so? A free exportation had been already enacted: If to this were added such a demand in the home market as would induce the farmer to cultivate more industriously, in the hope of a fair profit, that desirable object would be attained. Although he was disposed to go further than the proposed Resolution—although he would willingly return to those laws, from the period of the abandonment of which the decay of the country had commenced, and give a bounty on the exportation of corn—yet even the adoption of this limited measure he was convinced would render us an exporting country; without being which,
952
we could never sufficiently guard against a recurrence of the evils which we had endured from the enormous variations that had of late years occurred in the price of grain. On all these grounds, he should give his most cordial support to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Frankland Lewisexpressed his complete and unshaken conviction, that if the subject were left to itself, the country would be placed entirely out of danger with respect to it. It was strange, that although it was generally admitted in theory, that all legislative interference in matters of food and commerce was pernicious, yet this maxim seemed invariably to be laid aside, as something too good for practice. The committee ought to follow the example of Mr. Pitt, who did all he could to set the trade of the country free from restrictions; and that with a view not only to relieve our own commercial system, but to introduce the same liberal spirit into the commercial system of other nations. One great tendency of this enlightened policy was, to secure the blessings of peace; as it was well known in history that nothing had more effectually fomented war, than those petty jealousies and quarrels which had arisen from the commercial regulations of different states. Unless the agricultural interest should show a sound reason for departing from this principle (which he contended they had not hitherto done), it ought to be tenaciously adhered to. As it was, it was proved by an official document, that at the present moment grain could not be imported from the Baltic at a lower price than 78 s.; and that without including the profit of the merchant. With that addition, grain so imported could not be sold in the English market under 84 or 85 s. Did not this fact afford an absolute proof that the agricultural interest was in no danger? Had not the farmer all the protection by it which he could hope or desire? As to the large importations which of late years had at various periods taken place, he was persuaded that the agricultural interest had materially benefitted by them; for, by sustaining the enormous growth of our manufactures and population, they had eventually raised our agricultural system to the astonishing perfection to which it had arrived. At intervals during this period of increase, the country had experienced a scarcity amounting almost to famine; and therefore, had not the increasing manufacturing

953
population been maintained, and nursed, and cherished, and fostered, by the very importation which was now complained of, it would not at present be in existence. In his opinion, a steady price was more likely to prevail with a free trade than with a restricted importation; for the only rational hope of remedying a local inconvenience was, by haying recourse to a wider surface of the world. The argument, that parliament must continue to legislate on the subject, because it had already legislated so much, was absurd. What was the object of all the legislative provisions that had from time to time been made? To remedy the evils occasioned by previous legislative provisions on the same subject. What had been the object of the Act of 1663? To destroy two obnoxious preceding Acts. What had been the objects of the 51 Acts that had since passed? Did not each of them, in succession, proclaim the failure and imperfection of its predecessor? He must oppose the Resolution.
Mr. W. P. T. L. Wellesleysupported the proposition made by his right hon. friend, convinced as he was that the agriculture of the country was brought to such a state of perfection as would, at least, easily enable us to supply our own consumption of grain.
Mr. Rosecontended, in opposition to the arguments of an hon. gentleman opposite, that the high price of bread was of material importance to the labourer; and that either he must seriously suffer, or it must be made up to him by an increase of wages, Adverting to former regulations, he shewed that it had uniformly proved injurious to fix the price of corn by parliamentary enactment. In 1791 it had been raised 6s. a quarter; in 1804 it had been raised 17 s. The rise now proposed was 40 s. a quarter; and he would venture to assert, that if the committee adopted the Resolution, 106 s. a quarter would very shortly be the minimum.
Mr. Huskissonargued at considerable length to prove that it would not be easy to make this an exporting country, by reverting to the system of our ancestors. The increased population of the country had, he believed, compelled our agriculturists to cultivate land that our ancestors would have rejected. It had been truly said by a right hon. gentleman, that the protecting price would not be the price at which corn would be sold in the home market. Experience, and the evidence of
954
the existing case, proved this. If last year the price at which importation was be prohibited had been fixed at 95 s. could it be seriously thought by any one that corn would be now selling at 95 s.? Was not the present price the consequence of our own abundant supply? He by no means wished that corn should be dear. He wished it to be cheap, provided that cheapness was the result of the capital and the industry of this country. He disclaimed having said that 87 s. ought to be the lowest price; and he preferred a graduated scale to a fixed prohibition, as it would afford greater facilities for keeping down the price if it should become too high. Nothing could be more simple or intelligible than the application of this scale. The foreign importer would know that every shilling that corn rose or fell would operate to the extent of two shillings on his importation. A much more complicated scale was applied to the importation of sugar, but no difficulty arose from that circumstance. Nor would there be any difficulty in the application of the graduated scale to Ireland; although, as it was not likely that there would be much importation in that country, a lower average might perhaps be taken for it. He perfectly coincided in the suggestion of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to leave the subject open to revision at no very distant period, impossible as it was to foresee the various circumstances and changes which might occur, operative upon it. By the present provision, however, the ensuing alarm would be allayed—not among the landholders, for he was persuaded that they had no greedy or grasping expectations—but among the occupiers of land, who had a claim on the justice of parliament to protect their interests from deterioration. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would adopt the graduated scale, as it would do enough, and not do more than was necessary.
Mr. D. Giddyapproved of the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Foster), in preference to the graduated scale; but thought 5l. too high a price to fix. If he were called upon to name a sum, he should say 84 s.
Mr. Fosterexpressed his readiness, provided the principle of his proposition were acceded to by the committee, to fill up the blank with 84 s. or with any other sum that, in their judgment, would be expedient. With their leave, he would withdraw

955
his resolution, for the purpose of making that alteration in it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that his right hon. friend need not do that until the committee had determined whether or not to adopt the graduated scale proposed by his hon. friend. That was the question upon which they were now called upon to decide; and for one, be should pronounce an unequivocal affirmative.
Lord Miltonagreed with the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Foster) in his objection to a graduated scale.
Mr. Canningthought the graduated scale was the least objectionable measure, as doing least; for he had considerable doubts whether it was necessary or proper to do any thing but what had been done; namely, the allowing the free exportation of grain. But as he did not think proper to erect his judgment against the committee, he should agree to the graduated scale; not precluding himself, on any future stage, from examining it, if he should then think proper. He hoped, however, that no legislative measure would be adopted on any resolution which was not unanimously adopted, without a due time being allowed to make it known to the country. Whatever measure was adopted, he hoped would be merely temporary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he intended to propose, that whatever measure was adopted should be temporary; and that he should not attempt to carry any measure quickly into a law which was not unanimously received.
Mr. Westernexpressed his disapprobation of the graduated scale, on the ground that it would afford no sure protection to the farmer.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he should support the graduated scale, not as the best measure possible, but the best which it was probable would be carried.
After a few words from Messrs. Huskisson, Foster, and H. Thornton, the House divided.

For Mr. Foster's Amendment

60

Against it

81

Majority

21.

The Resolution, in its original form, was then agreed to.

DULWICH COLLEGE PETITION.
The Duke of Norfolkadverted to the Petition upon the table against certain enactments in the Dulwich College Bill; and on the ground, principally, of its containing matter of which he was not sufficiently aware in the first instance,—he should move that the petitioners have leave to withdraw the Petition.
Lord Hollandobserved, he certainly had no objection to the Petition being withdrawn: whatever objections he felt were to its being received. He could not help remarking, that a clamour was industriously raised against the Bill now before the House. The Petition which his noble friend moved to have withdrawn alleged, that the petitioners were interested in the College of Dulwich; because, being of the name of Alleyne, they were eligible to the situation of wardens and masters; that was the same interest in the College, that all persons eligible to be so appointed had in other colleges. Such was one of the things of which the petitioners complained, and the reason stated for their being heard by counsel: it was not stated, that the present Bill so affected their interests, but that an Act passed some time ago had affected their interests. That Act was one which was allowed to have materially benefited the interests of Dulwich College. The Petition, he also remarked, went to cast a reflection, for which there was far from existing any ground, not only upon those who came forward on the occasion, but upon some of the best characters to be found in the history of the country; involving with respect to them, a charge, by implication, no less than the subornation of perjury. He must naturally be pleased at hearing such a petition
924
was to be withdrawn, which seemed to reflect in such a manner upon those who were only actuated by a sincere wish to promote the real interests of the College in question.
The Duke of Norfolk, in explanation, stated the way in which the Petition came into his hands. He seemed to admit that part of the language of the Petition alluded to by his noble friend, might be so construed, though they did not strike him so, nor did he think such a reflection was meant to be cast by the petitioners; but as he deemed it so far improper; he was inclined to propose its being withdrawn.
The Petition being so ordered, his grace then presented another Petition for the same object as the former; but drawn up, he said, in an unobjectionable manner; which, being read, was on the motion of the noble duke referred to the committee on the Dulwich College Bill. His grace then moved, that the statutes relating to Dulwich College should be laid before the House.—Ordered.