Sitting of 24 May 1814

PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.
Mr. Grattan presented a petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland; setting forth, "that the petitioners again approach the legislature with a statement of the grievances under which they, labour, and of which they under which they labour, and of which they most respectfully, but at the same time most respectfully, but at the same time most firmly, solicit effectual redress; their, wrongs are so notorious and so numerous, that their minute detail is quite unnecessary, and would indeed be impossible were it deemed expedient; ages of persecution on the one hand, and of patience on the other, sufficiently attest their sufferings and their submission; privations have been answered only by petition, indignities by remonstrance, injuries by forgiveness: if has been a misfortune to have a misfortune to have suffered for the sake of their religion; but it has also been a pride to have borne the best testimony to the purity of their doctrine by the meekness of their endurance; and that the petitioners have sustained the power which spurned them, they have

1017
nerved the arm which smote them, they have lavished their strength, their talent and their treasures, and buoyed up on the prodigal effusion of their young blood the triumphant ark of British liberty; the petitioners approach then with confidence an enlightened legislature: in the name of nature they ask their rights as men; in the name of the constitution, they ask their privileges as subjects; in the name of God, they ask the sacred protection of unpersecuted piety as Christians: are securities required of them? They offer them, the best securities a throne can have, the affections of a people; they offer faith that was never violated, hearts that were never corrupted, valour that never crouched; every hour of peril has proved their allegiance, and every field of Europe exhibits its example; and that the petitioners abjure all temporal authority, except that of our sovereign; they acknowledge no civil pre-eminence, save that of our constitution; and for their lavish and voluntary expenditure, they only ask a reciprocity of benefits; separating, as they do, their civil rights from their spiritual duties, they humbly desire that they may not be confounded; they render unto Cæsar the things that are Caesar's, but they must also render unto God the things that are God's; their church could not descend to claim a state authority, nor do they ask for it a state aggrandizement; its hopes, its powers, and its pretensions, are of another world; and when the petitioners raise their hands most humbly to the state their prayer is not that the fetters may be transferred to the hands which are raised for them to heaven; they would not erect a splendid shrine even to liberty on the ruins of the temple: in behalf then of five millions of a brave and loyal people, the petitioners call upon the legislature to annihilate the odious bondage which bows down the mental, physical, and moral energies of Ireland, and (in the name of that Gospel which breathes charity towards all) they seek freedom of conscience for all the inhabitants of the British empire; may it therefore please the House to abolish all penal and disabling laws, which in any manner infringe religious liberty, or restrict the free enjoyment of the sacred rights of conscience, within these realms."
Mr. Grattansaid, that it was not his intention to move for any further discussion on the subject of the claims of the Catholics, under the present circumstances. In this, he begged to be understood as expressing
1018
his own opinion, which he found coincided with that of many other members of the House. He could by no means say that it was the wish of the Catholics that the discussion should not come on now. Many of them, he believed, wished that the discussion should now come on. But under the present circumstances, it was his opinion, that it would be desirable not to have any discussion on the subject at present; nor to have any ulterior measure proposed. In the mean time, he moved, that the petition do lie on the table.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Sir John Cox Hippisleymoved for the production and printing of two papers; which, he lamented to observe, were the last of the class, properly official, that he could obtain from the offices of government, or from the records of parliament. He lamented this much, as he had once flattered himself with being the means of producing, through the report of a select committee, many other important documents; the House, However, had unfortunately shut themselves out from that information; and however he might himself regret it, it was not for him to censure their decision. In moving for these papers, he thought it his duty to correct a mis-statement connected with his former motion, which had found place in several of the public prints. He had been represented as having asserted, that a large sum of money had been sent to Ireland from Rome, for the purpose of founding a Jesuits' college. He had in fact made no such assertion; but had re-stated, as he had before stated in parliament more than twelve months since, that such a remittance had been made from hence to Ireland, for the purpose of being appropriated to a seminary of ecclesiastical education. He also stated, that nearly 16,000 l. of that sum had been paid for the purchase of Castle Browne in Ireland, and that a professed Jesuit had been placed at the head of the institution. In stating also the circumstance of the construction of an oath, as avowed by Mr. Francis Plowden (not Browne, as also erroneously stated), in his History of Ireland, sir J. C. Hippisley had been also equally misrepresented. In Mr. Plowden's construction, oaths were to be considered as obligatory—"secundum intentionem jurantis," and not "secundum intentionem imponentis." This sir J. C. H. was represented also, in many of the

1019
public prints, to have applied generally, as a Catholic principle; whereas he expressly stated, that it was opposed to the recorded opinions of the soundest Roman Catholic theologians, and their most accredited jurists, particularly naming St. Isidore and Justinian, as well as Dr. Paley, and other writers of the establishment. Sir J. C. H. then moved, "That the report made to lord Wm. Bentinck of the state of the Roman Catholics in India; and also the report of the proceedings in council relating to the estates of the Jesuits in Canada, be printed."—Ordered.

PETITION OF MR. ARTHUR MORRIS, HIGH BAILIFF OF WESTMINSTER.
Mr. Lockhartstated the great hardship and injury which the high bailiff of Westminster had sustained, in consequence of not being able to recover the expences of erecting hustings, at Covent-garden, for the two last elections for Westminster. As the returning officer for that populous city, he was compelled, by act of parliament, to erect a hustings and provide poll-clerks, under a penalty for his neglect; and the Act said, he should recover the money so expended from the candidates. Sir F. Burdett had, however, refused to pay his quota; and the high bailiff, in trying to recover it by law, had been nonsuited, and put to the expence of a sum not much short 2,000 l., the court of law having determined, that sir Francis had shewn he was not a candidate. He, therefore, moved, that the Petition of the high bailiff be referred to a committee, who should report their opinion and observations to the House.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaw no reason why the high bailiff should be re-imbursed by the public. He understood that he had given a considerable sum for his place, and he believed had got a very hard bargain; but he could not see why the public should pay for the misconstruction of an act of parliament, in bringing an action against a person as a candidate, who really was not a candidate. But though he could not recover against him, he might recover against the other two, who were candidates. As such, he should object to the motion.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, the misconstruction was in the legislature who passed the Act, and had unfortunately compelled the high bailiff under a penalty, to erect hustings, &c. and to look to the candidates for reimbursement. Now it turned out, that a
1020
man might be elected without being a candidate. He thought the House ought in justice and fairness to agree to a committee.
Mr. Wrottesleythought it would be acting on a wrong principle, and would introduce a bad precedent, to reimburse the high bailiff's expences, and therefore should vote against it.
Mr. H. Thorntonwas of opinion, that as the legislature had compelled the high bailiff under a penalty to incur certain expences, and had, from a defeat in its enactment, prevented him from recovering against the candidate, as it professed to do, the House ought to agree to a committee. He observed, that a similar circumstance had taken place at the last Southwark election; where, on account of one of the candidates refusing to pay a part, the others also had refused to pay the whole expence.
Mr. Harveyapproved of a committee; and observed, that it was not necessary the committee should give an opinion on the question of remuneration, but on the whole of the case.
Mr. Bankescontended, that the case of Southwark was very different, as the expence ought to fall on those who were really the candidates. He was against the motion.
Mr. Lushingtonthought the House should indemnity the returning officer for his expences; and if all the sheriffs of England were placed, at the same time, in the same predicament, they would have the same claim for being indemnified.
Mr. Peter Moorethought that if the officer acted under a misconstruction of the Act, he ought to be indemnified.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, it was a part of the duty of the returning officer to prevent confusion by the erection of hustings, and by making other arrangements. If he was not indemnified either by the House or by the candidates, the consequence would be, that such arrangements would be neglected, and riot and confusion would be the consequence.
The House then divided on the motion—For it, 26; Against it, 17;—Majority,9.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
On the motion, "that the report of this Bill be brought up,"
Mr. H. Lascellestook the opportunity (without entering at large into the question) to declare, that in the present state

1021
of things he could not assent to the Bill. Before he could agree to such a measure, he thought it necessary to be convinced that there had been a state of things adverse to the interests of the landholders and farmers up to this time. So far from this being the case at present, he found, by referring to the proper documents, that there had for several years been a progressive rise in the price of corn. The House was really called upon to legislate on the subject without knowing what the real state of things was. Under these circumstances, he should wish the House to wait and see what would be the consequences of the alteration that would take place from the removal of a great part of the burdens under which the tenant now laboured, before they decided on so important a question.
Mr. Grenfellwished the decision to be postponed, on the ground that the House was not in possession of information on which it could proceed on so important a question. The agitation which had been caused in the public mind on the subject, was another strong reason why they should delay. He did not himself think that the object of the Bill was to raise the price of corn; but certainly its object was very much misconceived. Even farmers misunderstood it; for within the last 24 hours he heard a farmer say, that the Bill would seriously injure the agricultural interests, because it would fix the price of corn at 87 s. per quarter. He therefore thought that time should be given to have those misunderstandings cleared up. He did not approve of the graduated scale.
Mr. Rosewould not lose any opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the precipitation with which the House had acted. The measure was not even understood by members of the House. They were proceeding without any inquiry. He would not talk of the report of last year. It was such a one as ought not to be proceeded in, even in the matter of a decision on a turnpike road. No inconvenience could result from the postponement of the decision; while, by deciding now, the country would be exposed to an unnecessary trial. If a proper inquiry was only instituted, he was convinced that no two sensible men would differ in their opinion of the subject; because, justly considered, the agricultural and commercial interests were identified.
Mr. Lushingtonregretted that the House was drawn into a discussion that day, contrary
1022
to the understanding of the House on the former night, and in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had not conceived that any objection would have been made to the receiving of the report.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that an extraordinary degree of feeling had been excited in the manufacturing districts by this measure; the consequences of which applied to every man, woman, and child in the kingdom. The safest course appeared to be delay, which might remove many great errors in public feeling. He admitted, that it was the interest of our manufacturers to promote the agricultural interests in Ireland, as Ireland was their best customer.
Sir H. Parnellmaintained that there had been no precipitation, as the subject had been before parliament a whole year. Few matters had received so much discussion. Even now a fortnight's delay was intended, that the question might be more completely understood. This measure was not framed on views of importation; but on our own stock of grain, and the means of keeping it up. Postponement was called for by those who did not really understand the subject at all. The reasons stated for doing nothing, were the very reasons why something should be done. The artificial state of prices for several years past rendered this necessary. Our exclusion from the continent had given a prodigious stimulus to our internal agriculture. How would it stand with our manufactures, if we were to let in foreign goods, as some now wished to let in foreign grain? Leave the law as it at present stood, for six months longer, and agriculture might become quite unprotected. Would the farmer sow as much corn as if this Bill were passed? Give him protection, and he would go on, growing a sufficient supply for our home consumption; which, if the foreign corn were let in, it would be impossible to expect.
Mr. Finlayremarked, that, for want of proper evidence, they could not understand the effect of the present state of things nor the consequence of competition with foreign grain. The consumer and grower had the same interest; and certainly the agricultural interests of Ireland deserved their consideration and support; but while he wished the prosperity of Ireland, he could not be indifferent to the interests of the people of this country. He was not for precipitating a measure of the results

1023
of which the hon. baronet said many were so ignorant, while at the same time he refused them all information. Modified as the Bill was, it was rendered little mischievous; but yet it was not such a Bill as he could wish to see passed. There was no evil probable from importation this year; and there could be no absolute necessity for the measure.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he had come to the House in the full expectation that no discussion would have arisen on the measure in its present stage. As to the charge of precipitation, he believed there never was a measure which had come before that House that was less liable to it. Nearly a month had elapsed since the Resolutions had passed, and yet they had not got into a law. It was certainly not his intention to hurry the measure: he merely meant to propose to the House to receive the report; and that the Bill, being then ordered for printing, should not be further contended till Monday, the 6th of June, which would afford a whole fortnight for its consideration. He would agree that there was abroad a very considerable alarm, as well as misrepresentation of the subject, by the assertion that its view was to raise the price of bread; but it would be found that the measure had nothing in it of so mischievous a nature. Persons out of doors, it was well known, would always misrepresent and exaggerate the tendency of measures before that House; and it was as true as unfortunate, that such misrepresentations were always listened to. Yet if this subject were fairly looked at, it would be found not calculated to create a pressure upon the poor, but to prevent those fluctuations in the price of corn, which had, at certain intervals, caused so much calamity, and which will periodically return, if not frustrated by this measure. He would add, that if this Bill did not pass into a law in the present session, the alarm which had prevailed among those who had devoted their capital to agricultural pursuits, would be felt next year in the full extent of calamity. However, instead of saying any thing that might excite debate, he should merely move that the report, be now received, and the Bill be printed.
Mr. Hornersaid, that the complaint was, not that the subject had not been enough debated, but that it had not been sufficiently inquired into. In the report of the committee there was no information. Not a single practical corn-dealer had been examined, in order to afford such information
1024
as alone would be satisfactory to persons not conversant with the subject; all that the report contained being some statistical knowledge respecting Ireland. The proposition of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Bankes) for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the subject had been rejected, and the House was without any information even of the price at which foreign corn could be imported. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rose) was the only person who had stated the price (Mr. Rose said across the table "conjecturally"); but that statement, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was merely conjectural, and he might be allowed to say very erroneous (a laugh); as he had not taken into consideration the exchange. The right hon. Baronet (sir Henry Parnell), who so violently upbraided the ignorance of the opposers of the Bill, was inconsistent in his remarks; as he said that the protection of parliament was necessary to the farmers, while he asserted that it would not influence the price of corn. The House, he thought, should be indulgent to the public feeling; and though no one should consent to relinquish a measure which he thought necessary, yet an inquiry might be entered into, and the measure delayed until the people were more reconciled to it.
Sir H. Parnell, in explanation, said, he had not stated the exclusion of foreign grain (well knowing that much had been imported), but the interruption of foreign importation, to be the stimulus that kept agriculture in a progressive state.
The Report was then received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday, the 6th of June.
Alderman Atkinswished to know what proceeding would then be taken on it.
The Speakersaid, he supposed the Report would be re-committed; but he wished the intended proceeding to be distinctly understood.
Mr. Huskissonhad no objection to its being recommitted, if any clause was intended to be proposed.
Mr. Hornerhoped, that whether any alteration were, or were not proposed, the Report would be recommitted, for the purpose of being more fully discussed.
Alderman Atkinsexpressed his intention of proposing a clause then, unless permitted in the subsequent stage.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, it was the usual course to permit the proposal of clauses in such cases.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, it was the understanding of his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the Bill should be then passed pro forma, and fully discussed in the following stage.