Sitting of 5 May 1826

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Humepresented two petitions, on a subject which he conceived to be of the highest importance, one from the Machine-makers of Manchester, and another from their workmen, in the same place; stating, that they had received large orders for machinery from abroad, and that they

909
would receive still larger, but were prevented from executing them, in consequence of the existing law against the exportation of machinery—that great distress had arisen from the want of employment; that there were at present several foreigners in Manchester who had come over for the purpose of engaging English artizans, and who declared, that if the laws against the exportation of machinery were repealed, they would not attempt to entice the workmen to go abroad—and that there were, at the present time, great numbers of workmen engaged to go to France and other countries, to manufacture those very articles, which, under a different state of the law, would be bought from the British manufacturer. It appeared to him, that we had arrived at that state, in which we were depriving ourselves of those advantages which we ought to possess, from a fallacious notion which had gone abroad, that there was something in the manufacture of machinery which ought to exempt it from the operation of those principles of free trade, which had been so wisely applied to other branches. The petitioners thought it extraordinary that machinery should not be allowed to be exported. They had received orders to the extent of 20,000 l., and were unable to execute them, although the manufacturers would have given employment to a number of those workmen who were starving around them through inability to procure work. He was aware of the prejudice which many manufacturers entertained on this subject. They supposed that the exportation of machinery was tantamount to an encouragement to competition in their several branches of manufacture; but this notion was fallacious. In a committee which sat last year, of which he was a member, the most satisfactory proof was exhibited, that if the prohibitory law was repealed, England might supply the whole world with machinery, and derive immense wealth from the manufacture: instead of which, day after day witnessed the emigration of our most skilful artisans in that branch to other countries, for the purpose of supplying them with articles which we possessed peculiar advantages in furnishing. This was a melancholy circumstance; and he hoped that, in the language of the petitioners, the law, which they stated to be incompatible with the principles of free trade, would be repealed. He had intended to bring in a bill in the course of the session for this purpose: and regretted
910
that he had allowed himself to be dissuaded from it by the President of the Board of Trade, who was afraid of increasing the alarm which prevailed in the country. An additional branch of trade was thus in danger of being lost to the country; and at the same time a number of deserving and industrious workmen left without employment. He considered the acts of violence which the workmen were committing in the manufacturing districts, as only tending to heap ruin on the heads of the manufacturers. He was sorry this subject had not before been brought before the notice of the House; for he felt satisfied, that the more discussion was provoked on the subject of prohibitory laws, the more the eyes of the country would be opened. If power-looms were not employed, not only would our exports suffer, but all the persons to whom their use was the source of employment, would be reduced to extreme distress. So far from the power-looms doing any injury, he thought that England would be a loser by their abolition. He hoped that these deluded men would be informed, that their recent proceedings were at once injurious to themselves and to the best interests of the country. He yielded to no man in wishing happiness and prosperity to the artizans of this country; but still he could not but regret the steps which they had so recently taken. He hoped, even now, that his majesty's ministers would give their attention to the prayer of the petitioners, for he had no doubt, that, if our prohibitory laws were removed, our artizans would find full employment at home, in place of going to France and elsewhere to look for work. Again he expressed a hope, that the subject would be considered, and that machinery would be placed upon the fooling of every other article of our manufacture.
Mr. Grenfellconcurred in all that had been so well said by his hon. friend; but he regretted that the subject was mentioned during the accidental absence of any of his majesty's ministers, and the more so, as he had reason to believe that they agreed with the views of his hon. friend. He knew one of those power-loom manufactories at Manchester, which gave employment to 150 men—although it was prohibited from exportation. But the result of this prohibition was, that if the machinery was not smuggled out of the kingdom, the artizans were; and he had heard there were now agents from

911
France in this country, who were busily employed in seducing our workmen to that country. He knew of a case which forcibly illustrated this prohibitory system. At the close of the American war, the then government thought proper to prevent copper sheathing being sent to France; and what was the result? Why, that the French immediately established factories of their own, and that of Rouen was now one of our most formidable rivals.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION OF MR. O'CONNELL COMPLAINING THAT LORD NORBURY IS SUPERANNUATED.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, he held in his hand a petition from Mr. O'Connell, the Irish barrister, praying for the interference of the House, in order to remove lord Norbury from the Chief Justice ship of the Common Pleas of Ireland. He felt that the subject was one of a peculiarly delicate nature; but, as he perceived nothing objectionable in the language of the petition, and as it had been forwarded to him for presentation, he would discharge his duty, putting the House as shortly as possible in possession of the substance of the allegations relative to the learned lord. The Petitioner expressed very clearly the disinclination he felt to interfere with the subject, if he had seen a disposition in any other quarter to have saved him the painful duty of standing forward on this occasion. He had hoped that the lapse of time might have rendered it unnecessary for him to lay his complaints before the House; but having been disappointed in these expectations, he could no longer refrain from calling the notice of parliament to a subject so deeply affecting the administration of justice in Ireland. He begged it to be understood that he preferred no imputation on the honour or integrity of the learned lord. He alleged simply, that he was incapacited from the adequate performance of his judicial duties, by the infirmity and debility consequent upon old age. In particular the learned lord was so subject to lethargic stupor, that he would frequently fall fast asleep in the middle of the trial at which he was presiding. In one instance it occurred that on a trial for murder, which took place in Ireland before the chief justice of the Common Pleas, his lordship fell asleep, and so remained during the greater part of the evidence. The consequence was, that
912
he delivered such a charge to the jury as led to the conviction of the prisoner, who however was afterwards very properly pardoned. Another instance was mentioned at Mulingar, when six persons were tried before the learned lord, who was sound asleep during the greater part of the trial. The fact of his being asleep was so notorious, that the barrister who conducted the prosecution, requested the jury to take notes of the evidence, in order that they might inform the judge of what had passed, when he awoke. The petitioner stated, that if it was necessary to support by evidence his allegation, that the chief justice of the Common Pleas was, by age and infirmity, incompetent to the duties of his office, he would appeal to the other judges of that Court, and to all the barristers who practised in it, and on the Home Circuit, which the learned lord usually selected. He was utterly incompetent, the petitioner solemnly affirmed, to try any serious case of property, or to preside over the fate of any human being, even on the most trivial charge. The petitioner was well aware that his interests were opposed to the course he had adopted, in bringing this subject before parliament; but his motives were public and pure. The only circumstance he had to reproach himself with, was his not having done so before; but he had found so much difficulty in prevailing upon any body to join with him, that he had been discouraged, until the weight of the grievance compelled him, without further hesitation, to present himself before that House. The hon. and learned gentleman, having thus stated the substance of the petition, observed, that he did not intend to found any motion on the petition. He felt that if it was deemed advisable to take any step, the measure would proceed with much better effect from some member connected with Ireland. He presented it to show that he would not shrink from the discharge of any duty, however odious it might be, relative to the administration of public justice. He certainly was of opinion, that infirmity or incapacity was a good reason why a judge should resign, whether it arose from age or any other cause. The complaint in this instance was not that the learned lord was originally unfit for his office, but that time, the greatest of all innovators, had deprived him of those faculties and talents which had recommended him to the notice of those who had placed him in authority. He

913
regretted the necessity of this course; but there was, unfortunately, no other mode of producing, or compelling, the resignation of a judge, than by bringing the case in this shape before the public.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that as the learned gentleman had distinctly declared that he had no intention of bringing forward any motion on this petition, it was scarcely necessary for him to make any observations upon it. But he could not help calling the attention of the House to the situation in which the learned lord was placed. The petition related purely to a question of opinion. Was an individual, because he had attained a particular age, to be held to be so utterly disqualified as to be incompetent to the discharge of his duty for the future? Who had pretended to fix the day beyond which a judge was no longer deemed worthy of his seat? It was well known, that there were, and had been, many judges who had performed their duty to the entire satisfaction of the public, at an age equally advanced with that of the chief justice of the Common Pleas of Ireland. The learned lord's health was as good as at any period of his life, and he (Mr. G.) had observed nothing in his public or private intercourse with him, that could justify the allegation that he was unfit for his office. The right hon. gentleman, with reference to that part of the petition in which the petitioner appealed to the other judges of the Court of Common Pleas for evidence of the incompetency of the chief justice, stated, that he was decidedly of opinion, they would declare him to be perfectly competent. A case had occurred in that Court, only the term before he quitted Ireland, which removed all doubt as to the ability of the learned lord. An argument of great difficulty was heard before the judges in banco. The chief justice differed from all his learned brethren on an important point of law. The case was afterwards argued before the twelve judges, and they decided, in accordance with the opinion of the learned lord, and against that of the three other judges of the Common Pleas. He did not deny that it might be proper to lay down a general rule, that judges should not sit after they had attained a certain age; but, it would be manifestly unfair to make the learned lord suffer by its operation, when it was not intended to be applied to others.
The Petition was then brought up and
914
read. It alleged, that the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of Ireland was eighty-five years of age, and so deaf that he could hardly hear any thing that passed in his court, and was besides liable, in such a degree, to lethargic stupor, that it was impossible he could properly attend to any case that was tried before him.
Mr. Northadmitted, that that part of the allegations of the petition against the learned lord was undoubtedly true, in which it was stated that he was eighty-five years of age, and he had ascertained, having taken pains to make the inquiry, that there was no judge so old either in Ireland, or in this country. He agreed, too, that the learned lord would have consulted his ease, his dignity, the wishes of his best friends, and the interests of the administration of justice, if he had retired from the bench some time since. But, whenever he should retire from the court over which he had so long presided, and in which he had displayed such unrivalled courtesy and kindness to the whole bar, he would leave behind him a remembrance of his admirable temper and unequalled suavity, which would long continue, after the infirmities of his declining age would be forgotten. Not for worlds would he have brought forward this subject himself; but, as it had been introduced, he was glad that an opportunity had been given to him of discharging a most painful duty.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, there was a strong probability that the individual whom he was proud to call his friend, had been induced to retain his seat, from having heard that a petition was to be presented against him. He was prevented from retiring, lest it should appear that he had yielded to the menace held out against him. His high integrity had never been impeached; and, considering the manner in which this petition had been reluctantly brought forward by the learned gentleman, he, speaking as the friend of the learned lord, felt that no impediment was raised in the way of his retirement by this petition. No part of it cast the slightest suspicion on the purity of his judicial conduct. He might retire without the shadow of an imputation on any portion of his long public life.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CORN LAWS.
Lord Stanleyrose to present a Petition from Bury, in Lan-

915
cashire, respecting the Corn-laws. He took that opportunity of saying, that, in his opinion, it would be decidedly of no use to let out the bonded corn without duty, as the only result of that course would be, to give the benefit of the remission to the corn dealers. He would recommend rather, that the full duty should be paid, and the amount afterwards remitted to the Committee for the Relief of the Distressed Manufacturers.
Mr. Huskissonquite concurred in opinion with the noble lord. The only object of allowing the corn to come out of bond without duty would be, to relieve the sellers of corn from the tax, and enable them to put the difference in their pockets. He availed himself of that opportunity to allude to a circumstance which had taken place on the previous evening, relative to the corn-market at Liverpool. He did so with perfect good humour; but he could not refrain from advising the hon. baronet, who had addressed him on that occasion, to be a little more on his guard as to the information he received. The hon. baronet had stated, that he had his information on the best authority, and that he placed entire reliance upon it. Now, he begged attention to these circumstances. At Liverpool there were two corn-markets weekly, one on Tuesday, and the other on Saturday. He had received a letter on Tuesday, the 25th of April, prior to that Saturday on which the hon. baronet had stated, that extraordinary activity had been manifested in the sale of bonded corn. The letter was to the following effect:—"We take the liberty to suggest, that great advantage might be made by the judicious purchase by government of bonded corn, to be re-sold to the Committees in aid of the distressed mechanics." This letter was signed, "Booth and Walmsley," The wheat in bond at that time was selling at from 4s. to 4s. 6d. a bushel. That was the price quoted in the printed price current. On the following Saturday, the hon. baronet stated, that uncommon activity was manifested among the holders of foreign corn. He (Mr. Huskisson) had deemed it necessary to procure the printed return for that day, and he found that the price quoted for wheat in bond was 4s. to 4s. 3d. So that this Saturday which, according to the hon. baronet, was one of extraordinary activity, had produced a depression of 3 d. a bushel. To this price current there
916
were added some observations on the different descriptions of corn, and he found these words with relation to foreign corn: "the transactions were unimportant, and the prices were unaltered." Yet this was the state of things which had according to the hon. baronet, occasioned extraordinary activity. Now he held in his hand a statement respecting the market of Tuesday, and the only observation he should make upon it was, that the wheat and flour, that is foreign wheat, continued dull at the last quotation. This statement, he trusted, would put the hon. baronet on his guard, as to the authority, whoever it might be, on which he placed so much reliance. He should feel most happy to place in his possession the documents he now held in his hands, in order that he might set his authority right. He trusted this statement would satisfy the House, and that they would be of opinion that he stood fair in this transaction, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. member for Surry on a former evening, namely, that the holding the office of President of the Board of Trade was incompatible with the duties of a member for the town of Liverpool, he should feel the utmost satisfaction and pride to be honoured at the next election with the confidence of that most enlightened and intelligent commercial body.
Sir T. Lethbridgeexpressed his opinion, that the authority of the right hon. gentleman was more likely to be correct than that on which he had relied. At the same time he must say, that he had the most entire conviction that the authority, from which he had received his information was convinced of its truth.
Mr. Heathcotepresented a petition from certain persons engaged in the Corn-trade at Boston, against the bill now before the House. They stated, that the effect of the present measure would be, to put money into the pockets of the holders of foreign corn. There was another part of the petition which was very important. It proceeded from some of the most considerable corn merchants of Boston, who stated, that on the faith of the decisions of that House, and the statements of the right hon. gentleman opposite, they had embarked a considerable portion of their capital in corn; and the consequence of the intended measure would be, that they must suffer considerably.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, it appeared to him, that the best course would be, for

917
government to take the duty into their own hands, and apply the amount to the benefit of the distressed manufacturers.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, that one of the arguments in favour of this measure was, the moral effect to be produced in consequence of letting loose the quantity of corn now locked up within the very sight of the distressed people. But to his moral sense, it seemed that gentlemen opposite wished to allow the people to suppose they could derive benefit from the violation of the laws. However, be the duty what it might, the effect of this measure would be, at the most, to reduce the bread a penny a loaf. If he could believe that the proposed measure would tend to produce any substantial benefit to the distressed manufacturers, he would give it his support. But, as he had said on a former evening, if this measure should pass now, it would settle the corn question for ever; but he lamented that, for the sake of reducing the price of bread one half-penny, or one penny, this indirect mode should be resorted to of altering the Corn-laws. He was sorry that this course had been resorted to at all, but particularly by ministers, in whom he was move disposed to repose confidence, than in any administration of which he had a recollection.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, that the object of the proposed measure was, not to reduce the price of corn, but to prevent its, rising to a prejudicial degree. The measure would not benefit the foreign corn dealer; for the greater portion of the bonded corn had been imported on British account. And one of the beneficial advantages flowing from the measure would be, to afford an opportunity to have the warehouses replenished when the present quantity should be removed; so that hereafter we might not be compelled to depend for our supply upon foreigners, instead of the stock in our own granaries.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CORN LAWS—BONDED CORN.
Mr. Canning Mr. Canning moved the order of the day, for the House resolving itself into a committee on the act of 3 Geo. 4, c. 60.
Sir T. Lethbridgeassured the House, that he retained the entire opposition which he had, on a former evening, stated to the measure. He would not, however, object to the Speaker's leaving the chair, because he was desirous of hearing, from the mouths of ministers,
918
an explanation of the principles on which their proposition was to be supported. He would, therefore, reserve his observations until the House was in committee.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Mr. Secretary Canningrose and said.— Although, Sir, it would have been very unusual to offer any opposition to your taking the chair for the purpose of resuming the consideration of a subject in committee, in the same form to which the House had already consented, yet I feel bound to offer my thanks for the courtesy of the hon. baronet and those who act with him, in allowing us at once to enter into an examination of the question, in a manner more convenient and satisfactory than we otherwise could have done, had they persisted in the opposition which they threatened. Before, however, I proceed to an explanation of that resolution which I am about to propose, I will take leave, with the permission of the House, to clear away some general objections to which the whole of the measures have been subjected—objections which, although they might not, if left unanswered, prejudice the principle of these measures, yet might, nevertheless, excite some prejudice against them, by throwing blame on those whose duty it was to propose them. I am further anxious to say a few words on that subject, because it is my earnest desire to free my right hon. colleagues and myself from any thing like a breach of faith, such as has been more than once attempted to be cast upon us, in the course of these proceedings. Most undoubtedly, I did, on the first day of the present session, make a declaration, which I am equally ready to admit I have renewed since, that I was of opinion the present was not a convenient season to enter into a consideration of the Corn-trade, with a view of making any alteration in the laws which affected it. That opinion I have proclaimed more than once. Upon that opinion I have, throughout the whole course of this session, acted; and I now declare, without hesitation, that it still remains unchanged. And still more, that if any one will consider these resolutions with a fair and unprejudiced judgment, they will find that they are characterised by a strict conformity with such an opinion, and art solely intended to enable his majesty's ministers and this House, without incon-

919
venience, to postpone any consideration of those laws, until another session. I am quite ready to admit, that if any thing had been done by us to prejudice the question of those laws, after the declarations we have made to the House, it would be, and deserves to be, considered a breach of faith upon our part. I confess, after the professions and opinions to which we have given utterance, that it is our duty to remove any impressions which have arisen from such an accident, and to conciliate, to the utmost of our power, the prejudices which may have been excited by it; but I not only believe most sincerely that this measure is calculated to do away with any inconveniencies which might attend at this season a general discussion upon the subject of the corn-trade, but I am also of opinion, that so far from its being a breach of faith, it is a preservation of that faith; and, while it is calculated for the benefit of all classes, that it is, above all others, adapted to the preservation of the interests of that class whose rights are said to be more peculiarly affected. If, on the one hand, I am ready to acknowledge that any attempt upon our part to prejudice the general question would be unfair as regards the agriculturists, and unwise and improper as a measure of policy, I hope I do not ask too much, if I wish to ask credit to his majesty's government for a conscientious desire to do their duty to all classes, and to guide their counsels so as to preserve the interests of every portion of the community, whether commercial, manufacturing, or agricultural. In addition to the imputation of a breach of faith, there has been another charge brought against us, less serious I confess, but which I am still very anxious to refute—I mean a something which has been presumed pretty generally, of some sudden change in the councils of his majesty's ministers with respect to the Corn-laws, since that question was brought under the consideration of this House by the hon. member for Bridgenorth. There is, however, still a third charge, in addition to this inconsistency, which has been arrayed in argument against us since the commencement of this discussion. It is stated, that my right hon. friend the president of the Board of Trade, gave, in his place in this House, such an answer, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Shaftesbury, as led to the belief that the bonded corn would not be meddled
920
with this year. I do not presume to say that this account of that answer may not be perfectly correct, although I cannot speak from my own knowledge, not having been in my place at the time when it was given; but I say broadly, that if that answer was such as left the matter in doubt—if it was worded in general terms, and so as to avoid the possibility of being committed to any specific and decided course—then it was unfair to draw from that answer any such inference as I have used in argument against us on the present occasion. I would contend even, that the right hon. gentleman did what was perfectly right, and consistent with the practice of this House, in the manner in which he worded that reply. Nothing is more common than for a responsible minister of the Crown to evade a question either of the affirmative or the contrary by such expedients; and though I am quite certain that the hon. member for Shaftesbury is altogether blameless of any want of courtesy, either in seeking for that reply, or in allowing such inference to be drawn from it—and although I am equally certain he meant nothing more than to obtain information upon a subject which affected many general interests; yet surely he cannot be so innocent as not to see what consequences might result from such unguarded declarations. Would he consider it to be either politic or prudent, or at all consistent with the duty of a minister, at the head of the trade of this country, to give answers upon the subject of his intentions with regard to a particular commodity, which might have the effect of raising that article perhaps 50 per cent by the very next post. He would, I conceive, feel it to be perfectly justifiable for a minister, in such a situation, either not to answer at all, or to give such a reply as would avert consequences so injurious to those engaged in the particular trade to which the question might refer. Questions were put every day in that House, the bearings of which were perhaps very little, if at all, understood, either by those who put them, or by those who were called upon to answer them. I myself have been required to give replies, on various occasions, to questions, of which, perhaps, I saw the full consequences better afterwards than at the moment when I was called upon to speak; but I have no hesitation in saying, that had I not evaded them, or altogether refused a direct reply,

921
I might have affected the interests of individuals in a degree which might hardly be credited. By the effect of inadvertently saying "Aye," upon one of these occasions, I might have created a rise; in a certain species of property to the extent of full twenty per cent; and, perhaps, by a simple "No," I might have depredated it to a similar extent. I say, therefore, that questions upon such subjects cannot be fairly asked; and that, when asked, it would be difficult to give any other answer than an evasive one, if a minister would fulfil properly the duties incumbent upon his situation. If I regret any thing upon this occasion, it is, that my right hon. friend did not remain altogether silent; but of this I am perfectly sure, that there was nothing in that answer which he intended to leave open to the inference which had been drawn from it. I hope I have now cleared the question from some of those impediments, with regard to its proposers, which stood in the way of a free and impartial discussion of its own merits, and that the proposition will be allowed to stand upon its own grounds, unconnected with the private views or pledges of those who are called upon to submit it to the consideration of the House. While it remained involved by such opinions or prepossessions, I feel that it was not easy to prevent it from being mixed up with questions which gave it a very unfavourable colour, in the eyes of those who were called upon to decide upon it; but I trust that they will now link it upon it; and I contend they ought so to look upon it, as a question supported by its own merit, and justified by its accordance with the soundest principles of policy. I do not mean to say, that if I thought the principles upon which I call for an assent to this measure right, I would not be prepared to uphold it upon that right; but I have the satisfaction to say, that we have now something more than mere theoretical right to support us, and that we have even in the very short period which has elapsed since this question was agitated, gained the accession of some experience in defence of our principles. I hope it will not be considered an unfair inference, that if I show what we have already done, and the expectation of what we are about to do, to be producing great good, I may be allowed to anticipate still greater good from the consummation of our intentions. The account of what we proposed upon the
922
subject of the bonded corn reached Liverpool on Wednesday morning; and on this day there are letters in town, one of which has been put into my hand just before I came down to the House. It is not from any friend of mine, nor an acquaintance, nor a political supporter either of mine or of my right hon. friend who succeeded me in the honour of representing that city in this House; but, on the contrary, from a gentleman decidedly opposed to me in politics. I know him, however, to be a a man of high honour, unquestioned integrity, and possessing great estimation as a mercantile character in the city where he resides. In this letter, dated from Liverpool, an extract of which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House, he says, "there has been a slight improvement to-day in Manchester goods, but the moment it became known that it was the intention of ministers to introduce a measure for our relief, by removing the restrictions which kept the bonded corn out of the market, cotton could not be obtained at an advance of five per cent; and there seemed to be a very general restoration of confidence, arising from the feeling that government would do all in their power to relieve the sufferers." This was the language of one letter. Since I entered the House, however, I have received another, which is also not addressed to me, or to any friend of mine, and I believe the writer to be opposed to me in politics. I know, however, that he is a person of respectability. His letter, dated 3rd of May, runs thus:—"The account of what has been proposed by ministers has made us all alive, and led to a very general improvement in trade. Holders of cotton are all speculating upon a rise; and there are no sellers to day." Surely it could not be said, after this, that the measure recommended is not founded upon good principles; and, even if the practical effect may be in some measure over-rated, it must be a matter of congratulation to its proposers, and an encouragement to perseverance, when they see that the expectation of its effects is likely to produce a return of that confidence, without which the manufacturers cannot hope to be rescued from their present difficulties. I am quite prepared to admit that, because there is so much good anticipated from the first proposition —that of the admission of bonded corn— we are not therefore to infer that this is

923
an argument for the second proposition. The good of the first proposition is plain and immediate; that to be anticipated from the second is distant and depends on contingencies. The first proposition may stand alone upon its own grounds; but, although the second may rest upon a somewhat different foundation, it tends to the same principle. We are, Sir, with regard to the opposition to the second measure, driven to one of two propositions—either that the present Corn-laws are to remain the fixed and unaltered future laws of the country, or to declare at once that this is the time to alter them; a time of great distress—of unusual excitement—of extraordinary anxiety. If the latter course is to be followed, then we should be compelled to say, that our opinions are changed with respect to the time for altering the Corn-laws; but the contrary, as I said before, is the result of our reflections. My opinion with respect to the impropriety of that alteration has been confirmed; and the very circumstances which most recommended to me these temporary measures are, that they will enable us to dispense with that alteration of the laws which would prove at this moment highly inconvenient, and would lead to no beneficial result. I have never heard it asserted by any man, even the most strenuous opponent of these measures, that the Corn-laws should not undergo a revision: but I think that, at the present moment, such a revision would be a great misfortune; and I would declare that any man looked ill at our condition, who, complying with the pressure of the present times and circumstances, would persist to the full extent in going into that inquiry which some consider advisable. An hon. baronet has asked us, why we are to do any thing, or what circumstances have called upon us to make any distinction between the present time, and that period in which the hon. member for Bridge north brought forward his proposition to the House? I do not myself, as far as regards the question, see any difference either; but I will endeavour to explain why I consider that we are called upon to consent to this proposition. For three weeks before the hon. member for Bridgenorth made his motion, there had been a gradual inclination to a rise in price; for three weeks since there has been the same: so that for six weeks— with the exception, I believe, of the last few days, when we can mark a slight de-
924
cline—a constant tendency to rise has been visible in the corn market; and that rise has been accompanied by a state of terror and alarm; which, although I do not mean to make any prophecies of famine, indicates an approach to a state which no man can contemplate with satisfaction. The harvest of last year began a month earlier than usual, and the consumption of it began almost with the gathering in of the harvest. This year it may be a month later, and the people be obliged, in the absence of some measure like that now before the House, to subsist upon its produce for fourteen months instead of twelve. In ordinary cases, and under other circumstances, such an evil might, perhaps, be without difficulty averted; but, I ask whether there is nothing in the present state of the country to call for more than ordinary caution and prudence upon the part of his majesty's government? The very fact, that the country will be without a parliament for many months of the present year would be, in my opinion, alone sufficient to justify such caution. I repeat, however, that I do not by any means wish it to be understood that I am predicting misfortunes, which I am well aware may not, and which I hope and trust will not, occur. A fortnight of mild weather, and west wind, may insure us such a harvest as will render unnecessary all the precautions which we are now taking. I maintain, however, that it is as much the duty of government to provide against a possible as a probable contingency. It cannot have escaped the recollection of gentlemen, that, in the year 1816, the prospect of a favourable harvest was changed in the course of a single night, and that the promise of the Monday was totally blighted on the Wednesday. Was it upon that occasion objected to the government when they came down with a proposition caused by this change of circumstances, that they were guilty of vacillation and a dereliction of principle? I know that gentlemen on the other side have said, and will say, that it is time enough to apply the remedy when the evil is found to exist, and that a mild and mitigated harvest may put to flight all the fears which are now entertained. I admit the latter proposition; but I maintain that it is the duty of government to guard against even the possibility of evil, especially when it is agreed on all hands, that it would be inexpedient to have recourse

925
to the natural corrective which the operation of the present Corn-laws would afford. But it has been also objected by the opponents of the present measure, that it is unnecessary, because his majesty's ministers already possess the power of doing that which they call upon parliament to sanction. I am willing to grant that we do constitutionally possess that power, if we choose to exercise it, but I will ask hon. members to look back with me to the history of the last century, and say whether there is not one instance during that period, which may act as a warning, if not an example, to the ministers of the present day. In the year 1766, the great lord Chatham was at the head of the administration of this country, and with him lord Camden, the most popular lawyer this country ever saw, was associated. For a few months nothing could be more popular than their government. A change of circumstances, however, arrived; and, during a period of scarcity, they were induced to exercise the power, which has lately been stated in this House, especially by the hon. gentleman whom I see on the bench below me, as absolutely inherent in government; namely, to take measures suspensive of, and even infringing the law, in order to provide for the salus populi. These eminent men, relying in part on the greatness of their power, and in part on their popularity, took the illegal, but, as every body admitted, the justifiable measure, under the circumstances, of doing the converse of that which it is said we ought to do, if the necessity arises—I mean what was equivalent to stopping the exportation, as we should be called upon to permit the importation of grain. As the law then stood, grain could be exported from this country up to a certain price. Famine stared them in the face, and they laid an embargo, stopping the exported grain. When parliament met, the most violent debates ensued; and, what was singular, every man who spoke in those debates admitted the act was absolutely necessary to be done; yet, because they had done it precipitately, as it was said, and without a due regard to all the circumstances belonging to it, and without a sufficient sense of what they owed, in duty, to parliament—against these two popular ministers, the most stormy debates ensued, and the most violent attacks were made successfully in both Houses of parliament. If, then, in a case in some degree parallel,
926
such was the result—if those two ministers, so superior in talents and popularity to any of those who compose the present administration—became the objects of the most violent and successful attacks in both Houses—because, at a period when parliament was not sitting, they had taken upon themselves the responsibility of advising a measure which was, they considered, called for by the exigencies of the country—is it not a fair inference, to say that the exercise of a similar power upon the part of the present government would be visited with at least equal obloquy, and call down equal opposition? Is it not an equally fair inference, to say, that had the administration to which I allude been able to foresee the opposition by which their measure would be met, they would have waited for the meeting of parliament before they ventured to bring it forward? Will any man, then, say, that his majesty's ministers, with this example before their eyes, are to be blamed, because, foreseeing, or at least seeing, a probable cause for anticipating a case calling for an interference with the existing law, they consult parliament in the first instance, instead of waiting until the crisis comes, and then acting upon their own responsibility? "But," say the opponents of the measure, "you have no need to come to parliament for leave to do that which the constitution empowers you to do—you are the responsible advisers of the Crown, and as such, you have the power of carrying into effect the measure which you now propose." I ask, whether this plea availed lord Chatham or lord Camden, when placed in circumstances where their claim to indulgence was much greater than ours would be, if foreseeing, as we do, the possible occurrence of a situation calling for interference with the existing law, and having the power, which they had not, of consulting parliament in the first instance, we neglected to do so? Sir, what was recommended to us by several gentlemen, but more particularly by the hon. gentleman to whom I took the liberty of alluding, was, let things go on, let the necessity arise, then use the power with which you are intrusted, and then come to parliament for a bill of indemnity. If the circumstances came on by surprise, parliament not sitting, I would have done so, and I would have trusted to parliament for indemnity; but when I see the spirit in which we are catechised for mooting it even as a possibility that we

927
should have occasion to admit foreign corn, what earnest is that of the spirit in which we should be received if we had come afterwards for indemnity? Is it to be believed that the same gentlemen— who consider it as a sin against the landed interest that we conceive it possible the case may occur in which we should wish to act on that discretion—would, if we now acted on that discretion, without their previous knowledge and consent, have opened their arms to us with indemnity, when we came to render an account? Would not the first question asked by them in that case have been, "What! had you no apprehension? Was there no indication of danger? What! were six weeks of a rise in prices nothing?" If we had acted without taking that warning, or without mentioning the fact, can we believe that the same gentlemen who are now unwilling to grant that discretion, would then be so willing to allow that it was justly taken, and would not have thrown the six weeks of a rise in prices in our face? It is now, forsooth, nothing to the purpose, that there is want stalking about the manufacturing districts. But do you believe that if we had acted, and then come for an indemnity, we should not have been asked —"Were there no indications of the necessity?—Was there no discontent?—Were you quite ignorant that there was a small stock on hand? Had you no knowledge that the prices of grain had been gradually looking up for some time? Was there no danger to be apprehended from famine acting upon an excited and disaffected population?" I ask, Sir, if there would not have been no language of this kind, and if we should not have had to encounter still greater opposition than that which bore down men so much greater than we can ever hope to be considered, and if their fate ought not at once to operate as a warning to deter us from a confidence which might prove fatal, and as a light to guide us to that course which is justified by experience? Should we not, I ask, be worse than madmen, if, notwithstanding what we see, and what we know from the records of history, we were to plunge blindly into a difficulty, from which it would be vain to call upon our advisers to extricate us. No other course, therefore, remained to us, but to come at once and ask for the sanction of parliament. Our mere love of what we consider legal and constitutional constitutes all the
928
difference between us and our opponents. The fate of those who neglected parliament operates but as a stimulus to the one course, and as an avoidance of the other. Sir, we may come at last to that crisis which we dread; we may be compelled, if parliament refuses its consent to the measure we propose, and throws us back on the power of the Crown, to make use of the very means which we deprecate; but if we do, the responsibility rests not on us, but on the heads of those who not only desert their constitutional principles by refusing to enact the law, but even seem to think they have a sound argument in their desertion. These gentlemen say we have a power which we may use, and come before their tribunal for freedom from punishment; we wish the power to be granted, as by that tribunal; and that is the sole purport of the present measure. It is not my desire to agitate the country by any unnecessary apprehension. The time for the exercise of such a power may have never been more distant; but it is the desire of his majesty's ministers, founded on the justifiable principle of a sound precaution, to receive such a licence as they may exercise for the benefit of the community, should the necessity arise in those six weeks, when, perhaps, from a dissolution of parliament, they might be unable to apply to it as the repository of that power, and when the danger might be too imminent to endure delay. And never let it be said, that it was a crime in a British minister, that he prefers the sanction of parliament to an arbitrary exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown. Well, then, we ask permission to do, not that which we are by the constitution debarred from doing—for the very argument against it admitsourright— but we ask permission to do that, which, if we do upon our own responsibility, we must afterwards come to ask parliament to sanction by their approval. If parliament were not sitting when the exigency occurred, there might be a very good reason for adopting the course which we recommend, unsanctioned by their approbation. But we have parliament sitting, and, foreseeing the difficulty which may arise, we do that, which, if we neglected to do, would deservedly subject us to the imputation of having treated their authority with contempt. We might, perhaps, if we acted otherwise, adduce the case which occurred in the administration of lord Chatham and lord Camden; but we should,

929
if we did so, be justly met with this answer—"True, they acted as you say; but then there was this slight difference between your respective cases. They acted upon their own responsibility, when no parliament was sitting. You foresaw the danger, and yet you did not consent to consult a parliament which was sitting long before the danger which you apprehended had occurred. The responsibility, therefore, rests upon yourselves, and you must take the consequences." The difference of the circumstances makes all the difference of conduct; and I say that they who refuse to give us this sanction must take on themselves the consequence of the objection. So, again, I say, that if the Corn-law was one which, in the course of these debates, any one gentleman had said he was prepared and desirous to let go to its full operation, all these precautions might have been dispensed with. But what would become of the present difficulty? After the difficulty had been experienced, and when parliament met again, do hon. gentlemen think they would come to the discussion with a better temper because it had gone to its full extent? It is, therefore, Sir, that I say to gentlemen of the landed interest that this is their question; and it is for their protection I bring it forward. I bring it forward because I am sure, that till the question can be discussed in another session, probably in another parliament, it is better the law should remain, as it has hitherto done— almost a dead letter in its operation. I am sure that we did good last year by interposing the bonded corn—that we do good now to them by interposing the bonded corn this year—and that we provide for their advantage by taking a power to interpose again between the extreme operation of the law and the consequence to the agriculturists. Sir, it remains to state only the measure of responsibility which we propose to ask of parliament. We propose to ask a sanction for the exercise of the responsible discretion, which is not only admitted, but contended to exist in the Crown, in the case of an emergency. I said, on a former night, that so far from creating an extensive discretion, there was no mode of limiting it, consistent with its object, on the one part, and consistent on the other with a faithful adherence to the assurance that we did not wish to anticipate the discussion of the Corn-laws—that we did not earnestly desire. The resolution which I have to
930
propose to the House is this—"That it is the opinion of this committee, that it is expedient to empower his majesty, by any order or orders of his majesty in council, to permit, under certain regulations, and for a time to be limited, the entry, for home consumption, of an additional quantity of foreign corn, meal, or flour, subject to the duties which may be imposed by any act to be passed in this session of parliament." In the course of the former debate, I observed, that there were three modes by which the proposed resolution could be restricted; first, by the imposition of a duty; secondly, by a restriction as to price; and, thirdly, by a limitation in the quantity. Upon that occasion, an hon. and learned gentleman opposite objected, and with great appearance of justice, to the first of these modes—the imposition of a duty; while another hon. member expressed himself unfavourable to the second, upon the ground that I am fixed too low a maximum of price. Now I am disposed to yield to the suggestion of both the hon. members; and, doing away with the limitation as to price and duty, to retain that of quantity alone Another hon. gentleman suggested a limitation in the price, and proposed that wheat should not be admitted until it had risen to 65 s. the quarter. This appear to me, on reflection, to be liable to the same objections, that it may be considered as fixing the rate at which importation should, in future, always take place. In one state of the country 65 s. might be a very high price, and might press very heavily, whereas, in a more flourishing condition, it might be comparatively cheap; and this variation in the pressure of the same nominal amount of price appears to be a decided objection to this mode of regulating the importation. For these reasons, I think that the third mode is the best; namely, a limitation of the quantity to be imported; by this mode we leave the Corn-laws exactly as they were: we lay down no new principles create no prejudices. It becomes a mere temporary measure in all its circumstances accomplishing the object for which it was intended, without leaving any sting behind. As to the quantity beyond which importation shall not extend, that must be in some degree arbitrary; but, in the absence of any more commanding principle of action, I propose such a quantity as together with the corn to be released from bond, shall make one half of the greatest

931
importation ever made. According to this mode of estimating the quantity I shall propose 500,000 quarters as the limit in point of quantity. I do not know how to explain the nature and meaning of that limitation better than by reading the heads of a bill (worded technically of course, and subject to revision and correction) which I mean to found upon the resolution with which I shall conclude.— The right hon. gentleman here read the heads of the bill, which were as follow:— "Whereas an Act has been passed in the present session of parliament, to permit the entry for home consumption, of the foreign grain, meal, and flour, which were in the warehouses of the United Kingdom, on the 2nd of May, 1826; and it may be expedient, from circumstances which cannot now be foreseen, to admit, before the commencement of the next session of parliament, a further limited quantity of foreign corn, for home consumption, before such corn would be admissible under the laws now in force, relating to the importation of the said corn.—Be it therefore enacted, &c.—That it shall be lawful for his majesty, at any time, from and after the close of the present, and until the commencement of the next session of Parliament, by and with the advice of his majesty's Privy Council, to issue an order, or orders, to permit the entry, for home consumption, either of the whole, or of any proportion, of the foreign wheat, and of flour made of wheat, which may be in the warehouses of this country at the date of the issuing such order, or orders, respectively, Provided always, that the quantity of foreign wheat or flour so to be admitted under such order or orders, shall not exceed 500,000 quarters (500,000 quarters in the whole). Provided also, that no such order shall be in force for more than two months from the time of its being issued; and that any wheat, or flour made of wheat, in bond, which may have been included in such order, and which shall not have been taken out and entered for home consumption, according to the terms and conditions to be specified in such order, before the expiration of the period specified in such order, shall not be entitled to the benefit of such order.— That it shall be lawful for his majesty in council, by any such order as aforesaid, to require, as one of the conditions for admitting such foreign wheat, or flour, to enter for home consumption, that it shall, upon such entry, pay such duty
932
as the said order may direct, not exceeding any duty now imposed under the act of his present majesty, entitled 'An Act relating to the Importation of Foreign Corn.'"
By proposing to limit the importation of corn to the quantity provided for in the bill, I think we shall have fully provided for the probable wants of the people during the interval between the two parliaments. That is the great object which his majesty's ministers have had in view, and whatever objection may apply to the measure, either in principle or detail, I trust we shall, at least, be free from the imputation of having acted with bad faith towards the landed interest. It is an imputation which, as far as I am concerned, I most unequivocally disavow, and I can answer with equal sincerity for my colleagues. At all events, I am convinced, that we should not have discharged our duty, if we had taken the responsibility upon ourselves, and had declined to apply to parliament for their sanction to the measure which I have now the honour to propose. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient to empower his majesty, by any order or orders of his majesty in council, to permit, under certain regulations, and for a time to be limited, the entry, for home consumption, of an additional quantity of foreign corn, meal, or flour, subject to the duties which may be imposed by any act to be passed in this session of parliament."
Mr. Carus Wilson,as an humble representative of the landed interest, felt that he had little pretensions to claim the indulgence of the committee; and yet he did trust that, for the little he had to say on this occasion, he should be heard with some degree of attention. Upon a question of this kind, he thought the House would care but little whether the individual who addressed them was possessed of his 2,000 l. or his 10,000 l. a-year: in either case he must have his honest opinion, and would be entitled to deliver it. And there were hearts and judgments in that House which would neither deny him that privilege, nor disown that opinion" in a time of great public pressure. It had not been his good fortune to hear, on a former evening, the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, upon the general question of the Corn-laws; but if he should have the honour of possessing

933
a seat in that House whenever that question again came on for discussion, he would endeavour to come to it prepared with the best consideration which he could give to it. At present he would confine himself to observing upon the temporary measure which had been proposed by his majesty's ministers, with a view to the alleviation of the distress prevailing in the manufacturing districts, that he had no doubt of its sound policy and ultimate efficacy. It was possible that he might be mistaken as to the general discretionary power with which they called upon parliament to invest them; but, as to the specific proposition relative to letting out the bonded corn, he was satisfied that he was not in error. He was one of those who thought there was the greatest probability, that, unless the measures which had been thus propounded were adopted by the committee, the deepest and most extensive distress would be experienced, ere long, in the country. If the more general measure, however, recommended by his hon. friend, should hereafter be found to be more beneficial in its nature, then, he did honestly declare, it should have his support in the first instance his most cordial recommendation in the second. But that was not the question at present. The question was one respecting a severe public pressure in a very populous portion of the kingdom. That being so, it did not matter to him, as a country gentleman, whether his income, in consequence of the adoption of these measures of relief, was to be high or low, great or small, during the period of their operation. No: it was of little consequence that he should be deprived of some things; that he should lose a few luxuries. He could be content to live on the food of his ancestors [a laugh]. It was not for him at such a crisis to look to these matters of private interest only; he was bound to look at the condition of the poor, at their wants, at the necessity of relieving them. And having, at all times, the greatest confidence in the wisdom of his majesty's government, and in the feeling and propriety, especially, with which they had introduced these propositions, he should give to them his willing support.
Sir Thomas Lethbridgesaid, he rose under great difficulties, to speak upon this question, after the right hon. Secretary, who had addressed himself to it in his usual agreeable and fascinating manner.
934
At the same time, and although he should probably find himself in a small minority in that opinion, he must declare, that he was by no means satisfied with the case which had been made out by the right hon. gentleman for these measures. His case was built on probabilities, and by no means proceeded on facts; and he had laid no ground to justify the extraordinary apprehension of such a calamity as a famine. He had not heard any attempt to prove that such a case was in the slightest degree likely to occur during the recess, or the dissolution, of parliament. And yet the very ground upon which the right hon. gentleman sought to rest his application to that House for the investiture of government with the powers referred to in the bill of which he had just read a draft, was this extreme case of such a fearful visitation as famine. The right hon. gentleman had argued all along upon what must come to pass if such an affliction should next autumn befall the county. But since no reason could be assigned to justify such apprehensions, he was not disposed to give the ministers of the Crown such powers as they now wished to have confided to them. He understood the right hon. gentleman to propose that 500,000 quarters of foreign wheat should be admitted into our ports within a certain period of the present year, such importation to be regulated by provisions similar to those of the act of 1822; and though the right hon. gentleman had not specifically stated at what duty this corn was to come into the country, he (sir T. L.) apprehended be meant it to be about 12 s. the quarter. Now, he could see no difference, if the fact were so, whether 2,000, or 200,000, or 500,000 quarters were to be so imported, at the discretion of government. That discretion, it would be admitted on all hands, was only to be justified in its exercise, in the event o corn reaching here what the right hon. gentleman called a famine price. But what that famine price was, the right hon. gentleman had not remembered to state He rather hinted that it was 65 s. Be surely 65 s. per quarter for English wheat was not fairly to be considered as a famine price by the parliament and the government of this country. If it was, he must be allowed to say that there was a very great difference between the views of the present government and the government which, in 1822, acted upon the statute the passed for allowing a limited importation

935
at a certain duty. It had been said by one hon. member, that 60 s. was a sufficient price for the landed interest. Another hon. gentleman took 65 s. to be a sufficient price; and yet the right hon. gentleman gave the committee to understand, that it was proposed by government that when the price of wheat had reached 65 s. the quarter, that should be the price which should authorize them to admit foreign corn to the tune of 500,000 quarters. Now, the only consolatory passage which he had heard in the speech of the right hon. gentleman was, that he meant to limit himself to an importation of 500,000 quarters only. The foreign wheat, which, by the first of the two measures propounded by government, would be loosed from the warehouses in which it had been bonded, added to this amount of 500,000 quarters, would make an aggregate of foreign corn in the market of about 1,000,000 quarters. In his conscience, he believed that the bonded corn which would be loosed would amount, at least, to 400,000 quarters; and, therefore, he repeated, that the only consolatory part of the right hon. gentleman's speech was that limitation of 500,000. It was for this reason that he did not feel so great an objection to the proposition as if it had been to give a power of unlimited importation; which, however, he had an understood right to assume it was meant to give, when the right hon. gentleman first came down and announced his intention of introducing the measure. But though to this extent he had some right to feel less dissatisfied with it, he must still oppose it, as being contrary to the recorded opinion and acts of his majesty's government at so recent a period. For his own part, he quite concurred with the hon. member for Hertford, in calling upon the House well to consider how far, in the event of these 500,000 quarters being admitted, at a duty of 12 s., it could ever be possible for them to look forward to the imposition of a higher duty on future importations.—The right hon. gentleman had carried the committee a long way back into the history of the country; in short, to the year 1766, when the great lord Chatham and the great lord Camden were in the government of these kingdoms; and he built his present measures on what he called—not the experience, but the warning, of those ministers. Now, he could not comprehend how the policy of the country at that period could
936
enter into or affect the present question. Was Holland, at that time, as she now was, crowded with warehouses full of corn? Were other states on the continent such large growers of grain, as they now were? Were the means of communication between the most distant countries of the globe as rapid, or as certain then as at present? Or was the intercourse between all the nations of Europe as facile and commodious for the purposes of commerce as at this moment? How different, too, was the case of our own country at that period, seeing that she was then approaching to a state of famine, from having been a corn-exporting country. Nothing like this state of things, however, existed in our time. We were no longer an exporting, but an importing country, as to corn; and an argument founded on our condition in this and other respects in 1766 was a mere fallacy. There was no foundation for the assertion of a similar case of approaching famine, and the whole of that part of the right hon. gentleman's speech was a piece of reasoning contrary to common sense and real facts. If there had been any truth in the assumption upon which it at all proceeded, it would have been the duty of government to assist the House with its superior information on so important a subject. Not being able, therefore, to see upon what grounds the argument of the right hon. gentleman proceeded, he must declare that, however anxious he always felt to listen to any measures which were recommended by that right hon. gentleman's powerful eloquence, and supported by his powerful influence in that House, still he was not to be carried away by what had that night been said by the right hon. gentleman; who must excuse him for observing, that his speech had by no means convinced him that the government on this occasion were entitled to the support they asked. He could not help thinking that this was the last time upon which they were likely to discuss the corn question for some time; for, if the duty of 12 s. were once fixed, it would always be a precedent to the prejudice of the landed interest.
Mr. Portmansaid, he was certainly one of those who had been most opposed to the resolution in question, in its first stage; for he did not believe the distresses of the districts in which the greatest suffering existed to have arisen either from the high price of corn or the scarcity

937
of money, but from a want of employment on the part of the workmen, originating in a deficiency of credit experienced on the part of the manufacturers. With respect to the second resolution—that which was now more immediately under discussion—he fairly confessed, that the view he had originally felt disposed to take of it was much changed. As an agriculturist, as a landed proprietor, and as a representative of an agricultural county, he was not prepared to take upon his own shoulders, either for himself or for his constituents, that degree of responsibility upon a question like the; present, which, he conceived, ought justly and properly to be borne by his majesty's ministers. He considered his majesty's government to be a responsible body. Whatever consequences might follow from the opening of the corn trade he thought they must be chargeable with; and, as a country gentleman, he would throw back upon their shoulders the degree of responsibility which they had attempted to throw on the landed interest. If by these measures they did an injury to the agriculturists, let that injury be upon them. Indeed, as far as injury went, they had inflicted a severe blow upon the agricultural body already, for they had told the House that there was a probability of the price of corn rising; and, that, therefore, it was necessary to permit this importation. But he fully agreed with an observation which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, that it was most impolitic at all times to dabble with the Corn-laws; and he did; believe, with the same right hon. gentleman, that it was perfectly impossible, at the present moment, permanently or effectually to settle that question. And he did so, feeling that whenever they came to its discussion, his majesty's government ought to be prepared with some proper and complete measure to replace the now-existing law. Much, therefore, as he respected the opinions of his hon. friend near him, he could not willingly allow the landed interest to take up the burthen of so fearful a responsibility as they would be assuming by rejecting the present proposition. At the same time he protested, in the face of the House and of the country, that, for his own part, he was prepared to go into the whole question of the Corn-laws whenever the government should be so, provided the latter came to it with some
938
such adequate and efficient measure to propose as he had spoken of. He made these observations the rather, because of the dabbling in this momentous subject which had already taken place, owing to the admissions which had been made in parliament by members of the government, that the Corn-laws, on their present footing, were inefficient. This, itself, was a most dangerous dabbling; but, if government were not vested with the temporary powers which they now asked for, he apprehended that the consequences to the country might prove of a distressing and dangerous nature. The hon. gentleman concluded by declaring that he should support the resolution.
Mr. H. Sumnerconceived, that the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs had argued as if the country were either in a state of actual famine, or approaching to such a state. This was made the ground of justification of the measures now proposed. But it was a singular piece of inconsistency on the part of his majesty's ministers, that whereas, on the 18th of April last only, they had declared that the country was not in a state to permit of the effecting any alteration in the Corn-laws, they now came down with propositions directly affecting the principle and altering the operation of those laws. They could not say they were taken by surprise; for the only difference between that period and the present was, that then the same distresses existed, but now they had broken out into acts of violence and outrage. If they were taken by surprise, the fact spoke but little for their foresight. If they were not, their present proceeding was one of extraordinary inconsistency with their recent declaration. For his own part, he had no objection to take to himself his full share of that responsibility which the hon. member for Dorsetshire had said he threw from him. The country, in his opinion, called on the landed interest to assume that responsibility, and he should oppose the resolution of one of his majesty's ministers, the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, although one of the committee who prepared the bill, the principle of which was so directly affected, had ever since been, by his votes in that House, actually trenching upon it. —"Last year," said the right hon. gentleman, "when permission was given to take out foreign bonded corn at a certain duty, that permission had not been attended

939
with any bad consequences to the landed interest." No: but last year the poor-rates were by no means so heavy as they now must be by reason of the distresses of the manufacturing districts, upon the landed interest. The landed proprietors, who would be prejudiced by these measures in the sale of their produce, would now have to pay their increased poor-rates. This burthen they would have to meet in the face of an importation of 500,000 quarters of foreign corn. In respect of what had fallen from the hon. member for Wootton Basset (Mr. G. Philips) about the advantage of low prices of corn, he begged to say that, with the exception of two years only, since the Corn-bill was passed, he did not recollect any period at which it had not happened, that when the prices of corn were high, the country was in a state of general prosperity; or when those prices were low, that it was not in a declining condition. He had the greatest objection to any alteration of the principle of the Corn-law. If that law was to be neutralized or altered, ministers should have brought on the whole question of those laws last year. At present he was very fearful that the duty they would propose would prove no protection to agriculture. Whenever the ports were opened, it would be found that our agriculture could not sustain itself. Closed ports until our corn reached a certain price was a sine qua non for the welfare of our landed interest. The right hon. gentleman had asked what would be the consequence of not having made some such provision as he proposed, if any further accidents fell out during the recess of parliament? He begged in reply, to ask whose fault would it be if there were no parliament? His hon. friends were very much belied if it was not their intention within two months to have a new parliament. But, supposing the present one to last a month longer, in forty days more they could assemble another; so that very little difficulty of the kind suggested by the right hon. Secretary need realty be experienced. He should oppose the resolution.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid:—Sir, since I have had the honour of a seat in parliament, I do not remember to have heard such unfounded charges of inconsistency as those which have just been advanced against his majesty's government. I am
940
anxious, Sir, to declare my entire concurrence in all that has been said upon the question before the committee by my right hon. friend. And, at the same time, I will again declare, that if I had now to vote upon the proposition of my hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, I would vote precisely as I did upon the very day to which the hon. member for Surrey has referred, the 18th of April last. Had I possessed, on that day, the gift even of foresight—and had I come to such a discussion with all the benefit of that deliberate reflection and enlarged knowledge upon the subject, which the debates upon it may be supposed to have subsequently furnished me with—and had I been cognizant of all those charges of vacillation and inconsistency which have this evening been urged against his majesty's ministers — yet, Sir, founding my decision upon what I believed to be the best ground, and with a view of ensuring, at a future day, a calm and unimpassioned discussion of the Corn-laws, I would as certainly have voted, upon looking at the present circumstances and situation of the country, against the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Bridge-north, for entertaining the proposition he then submitted to the House, with a view to the permanent arrangement of the law respecting the importation of foreign corn. I see no well-founded charge of inconsistency against his majesty's ministers, because at this time they propose to parliament the measures which my right hon. friend has propounded to the committee;—because they are applying to the legislature for that discretionary authority, with which it may be a matter of prudence and a means of safety to invest them; or because they call for such a provision, in the apprehension that there may be a grievous pressure experienced by the people from the possible rise of agricultural produce beyond its present prices. Looking at the expediency of protecting those classes of the community who would be most affected by a rise from future pressure of that kind, my right hon. friend proposes to arm the government with powers of a discretionary nature, in order to prevent any such pressure, which might otherwise be likely to be experienced in the manufacturing districts. My hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire, whom I have heard this evening with so much pleasure, says, that he throws back upon his majesty's government the responsi-

941
bility which he considers we would throw upon the landed interest. Sir, we accept that responsibility. Our proposition is, that such a responsibility should be imposed upon those with whom alone it ought to be trusted; namely, his majesty's government. But we say to the gentlemen of the landed interest, "If you refuse us these powers, the responsibility is no longer on our shoulders, but on yours." The whole effect of the motion which is submitted to the committee will be, to place those powers in the hands of the Executive government. My hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire, thinks that no case is made out as to the necessity of low prices of corn. But my hon. friend, the member for Surrey, charges his majesty's government with vacillation and inconsistency; because, after negativing the vote which the hon. member for Bridgenorth asked the House to come to upon the 18th of April, in respect of the propriety of remodelling the Corn-laws altogether, they now propose the admission into the country of 500,000 quarters of foreign corn. Why, Sir, if this sophistry is to avail, let me ask where is the consistency of the hon. member for Surrey himself? He says, that we should have brought forward the whole question of the Corn-laws before this period. But what have been his votes on the subject? When the hon. member for Bridgenorth proposed to discuss the corn question, did he not vote against the discussion? And when it was proposed to let out bonded corn at a duty, in a former year, did he not support the proposition?
Mr. Sumner.—I did not vote for it.
Mr. Peel.—But did my hon. friend oppose it? Was he not prepared to admit foreign wheat, under such circumstances, into the market? I do appeal to the landed interest, to those members of it who are now present in the committee, and to that fairness and manliness which I know them to possess; and I call upon them, if they wish to prohibit the admission of foreign corn generally, with a view to prevent competition, and have yet been willing, under some circumstances, to let it come in; if they see no inconsistency in this, I say, do let them feel rightly for those who propose to parliament a measure which may have the effect of alleviating the pressure which weighs so heavily on the manufacturing community. Sir, I can have no prepossessions against either the manufacturing or the agricul-
942
tural interest. My connexions with both of them would effectually prevent me from being opposed to either. With the manufacturing interest I am connected by many important ties; but, as far as personal interest is concerned, I believe I may say, no man is more deeply concerned in the welfare of the agriculturists than myself. My hon. friend who spoke last has said, and I have heard the observation repeated more than once by others, that there is no use in increasing the supply of corn in this country, and lowering its price; since they who are in want of money altogether cannot buy it at any price, however low. Why, Sir, what miserable sophistry is this! To suppose that there are no classes in this country except those who are abounding in wealth, and can command all luxuries—and those who are in the other extreme, and unable to purchase even the necessaries of life. But I put it to my hon. friend, whether there are not between those two classes many intermediate ones, who possess, in various degrees, the means of purchasing some of them the luxuries, some the comforts, and some the necessaries, of life? Is it possible to contend, that no immediate advantage will result to the other classes from lowering the price of corn to them, if it shall have attained such an additional price in the market as to render it dearer than it is at present? Look at the distressed classes of manufacturers; look at the number of unemployed persons, who are suffering: at Rochford there are 10,000, at another place 12,000, at another 15,000. How are they supported at this moment? Why, Sir, they are supported by the benevolence of their neighbours. And if the effect of the measures proposed by my right hon. friend be to enable those neighbours, with the contributions raised for their relief, to purchase additional supplies of corn, to be afforded to those who have no means of purchasing it, what folly is it to contend that lowering the price of corn, and thereby enlarging the quantities which such monies will purchase, will not relieve the unfortunate people in question? When my hon. friend says, that no case had been made out, I would ask what it is he means? Quite sure I am that I may appeal to the committee whether, in the very fact of those existing distresses, such a case is not made out? I am so confident that the general conviction of the distress which now prevails in the

943
manufacturing districts must have come home to the mind and knowledge of every man, from the information which has been supplied on that head by the daily newspapers, as to be perfectly satisfied, that the same motives which induce parliament to concur in the proposition for letting out the bonded coin, will also induce it to give a discretionary power to the government to do precisely the same thing, or a measure of similar effect; that is to say, to admit 500,000 quarters of foreign corn into our ports. I have listened with great attention to the arguments of my hon. friend, the member for Somersetshire, but he seems a little to misapprehend the propositions of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend does not propose, as the hon. baronet supposes, a specific duty of 10 s. the quarter on the corn so to be imported. But why does my hon. friend, of all men, assuming even that his notion is correct, enter his opposition to such a duty. In the last year, when foreign corn was admitted, it was admitted at 10 s. only; and this 10 s. has since been assumed, I think, as the maximum of duty to be imposed on future importations. But, in point of fact, Sir, in the very first instance, when some vague proposition was made on the subject, 12 s. was suggested by my right hon. friend. He departed from the precedent of the former year: he did not take 10 s. a quarter, but he did take 12 s. per quarter for the new duty. How can there, I ask, be a more conclusive proof than this, that if the duty now to be fixed were a definite duty, it would be likely, even at 12 s. to be permanent or prejudicial to the landed interest? But my hon. friend, the member for Somerset, is alarmed, because, as he observes, we positively mean to admit 500,000 quarters of foreign wheat. That, Sir, is by no means necessarily the case. My hon. friend, upon looking at the bill about to be brought in, will find that there is an express provision in it,—in the event of 200,000, or even: 100,000 quarters proving sufficient to meet the exigency of the case,—that there shall be no obligation upon his: majesty's government to admit the whole 500,000 quarters. The 500.000 quarters compose the maximum quantity, which, in any event, can be admitted in virtue of this proposition; but there is an express power to limit the amount of the importation to any degree, according to circumstances. There is another observation,
944
(to which I have before had occasion to reply) that I have heard again suggested namely, it has been said, that to pass these measures would be to make an unbecoming and dangerous concession to an infuriated and destructive mob. No man, Sir, would be more disposed to resist and oppose any concession of that kind than I should be. From such a quarter, no man could be less willing to countenance any demands, be they what they might, than myself. But when I am told of unworthy concessions, let me observe, Sir, that there are two sorts of courage which may be displayed in respect of them: there is the courage of refusing to accede to such demands at all; and there is another kind of courage—the courage to do that which in our conscience we may believe to be just and right, disregarding all the clamour with which these demands may be accompanied. I fairly own that I feel it to be in our power to manifest this species of courage, and to laugh at the clamours of the mob. In England, after all, Sir, the mob can do nothing. There is a pervading power in this country, a moral feeling, that can at all times put down any mob. Do not let us, therefore, refuse to take these, or any other, steps which we believe to be right, from any pusillanimous apprehensions of the power of the mob. Now, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that the disturbances which have occurred at Manchester and its neighbourhood have been greatly exaggerated. I see it stated in the papers, that for months past applications have been made to me, and requisitions sent up for reinforcements, which have been withheld. I will venture to say that, at no former period of our history have such charges been so utterly unfounded. I have no hesitation in declaring that, suspecting the probability of such disturbances as these, I, months ago, took the precaution, without any application from the northern districts for the purpose, of establishing double the military force which had been for the year preceding stationed in those quarters. I make this assertion, because I see it elsewhere stated, that if these applications had not been neglected, and if more assistance had been supplied, the outrages which have been committed might have been obviated. I say, broadly, that such assertions are totally unfounded. I say that which I believe can be rarely said, that not only was the force in question

945
double, without any application made to me from those districts; but that no applications which have ever been made to me on this subject have ever been neglected. But the fact is, that it is in the power of a very few persons to do a great deal of mischief. Where there is no military force established in the neighbourhood, a very few persons may assemble together, and, attacking a manufactory a few miles distant from a town, break into it, and soon destroy a few power-looms. What, however, I am most anxious to impress upon the committee is, the erroneousness of the apprehension, that any mischief can ensue, in the way of a dangerous concession, from the simple measure now submitted to it. For, although excesses have been committed, yet, by the exertion of the energies of government, I hope that their continuance has been repressed; but I feel called upon to say, that, in many places where distress has existed to a great extent, the privations have been borne by the lower classes with fortitude and forbearance. There have been no disturbances in Yorkshire, where much pressure and inconvenience have been felt; except, indeed, at Bradford, where they have not been carried to any great extent. Yet I must reject the imputation, that his majesty's government have adopted this measure on account of the clamour that has been raised against the Corn-laws; and I must also deny, that the measure is calculated to produce an addition to the poor-rates, by throwing the agricultural labourers out of employ, as has been urged; as I think that circumstances may occur in which the admission of foreign corn may tend to reduce the poor-rates. The hon. member for Somersetshire has charged us with proposing the measure to parliament, without stating facts to support it. We reply, that it is not on facts that it is grounded; it is only on contingencies, as in the event of the next harvest failing, we deem it to be the part of a wise and prudent government to arm itself against necessity; but still the case is not so denuded of facts, but that many might be adduced in support of the measure. I hold in my hand an account of the prices of corn in the last year and in the present, and I find them to be nearly equal; and I cannot account if there is, as is said, a superabundance of corn in the country, how it happens that it should for so long
946
a period maintain its price; because, if we look at the prices of other commodities in the year 1825, and at the present period, we shall find a great disparity: as, for instance, the price of cotton varied in that year from 9¼d. to 12 d. the present price is from 4¼d. to 6d.; Pernambuco had fallen near 100 per cent, as, in 1825, it was from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 8d., now it is from 10 d. to 11 d.; coffee was from 84 s. to 865 now it is from 44 s. to 52 s. In all those articles the depression had been tremendous; sugar had fallen from 70 s. to 50 s.; rum from 2s. 2d. to 1s. 8d.; tallow from 44 s. to 32 s.; while wheat, which was last year 66 s. is now 61 s.; and oats, which were 27 s. are now 23 s. In these circumstances alone, Sir, I think there are facts enough, on which a presumption may be founded, that there is not a superabundance of wheat in the country; and, therefore, my right hon. friend requires that the government should be armed with the power of admitting foreign corn, in case events should render it necessary, for the purpose of avoiding the inconvenience that must ensue, if such an important article should, by any casualty, attain to a very high price. It is a delusion to suppose that foreign corn is, by the present law, admissible directly the price of corn actually reaches 80 s. That is not the law. The price must be regulated by a long course of averages, so that corn might be, in fact, at 100 s., and yet the ports could not be opened for the admission of foreign grain, unless the average of a number of years would make the price of it 80 s. In stating this fact, I think I perceive a change in the face of an hon. member, which indicates that I here give a solid reason why the whole question of the Corn-laws might be at once opened to a full consideration and discussion; but I take the present measure to be the more simple one, and the better calculated to meet the anticipated emergency; and if I am called upon I shall be ready to vindicate that opinion. The whole question must undergo a revision in the next session of parliament: and if ever there was a measure calculated to insure a thorough and an impartial consideration of the Corn-laws, that measure is the one which my right hon. friend has this night propounded. A large majority of this House decided the other night, that the present period was not a fit one for the consideration of this question, and had seen full reason to postpone it till the

947
next session. My right hon. friend has almost exhausted the constitutional part of this question; yet, perhaps, I may be permitted to say a few words on it. His majesty's ministers have thought it right to ask parliament for its consent to enable them to open the ports, if such a measure should be found necessary, rather than after having exercised such a power without the sanction of parliament, to have to apply to the House for indemnity for so doing. We have, Sir, the precedent of the year 1766 before our eyes; and we there see how the ministers of that day were charged with treating the parliament with disrespect for not having furnished themselves with its authority, in circumstances exactly similar to the present. The parliament, in May 1766, was petitioned by the lord mayor and corporation of London, to adopt some measures to prevent the exportation of corn at a time when a scarcity was anticipated; that, as well as other petitions, was neglected. In June, the parliament was prorogued, without having taken any steps to provide against a scarcity; and, before it re-assembled, corn had reached so high a price, that the king was advised to issue an order in council, laying an embargo on the exportation of that article. The conduct of the king's ministers on that occasion was severely arraigned, and the gravamen of the offence charged upon them was, the not having foreseen, and constitutionally provided against, such a calamity. The king summoned the parliament in November, and at the opening of it addressed it in the following words: "The high price of wheat, and the defective produce of that grain last harvest, together with the extraordinary demands for the same from foreign parts, have principally determined me to call you thus early together, that I might have the sense of parliament, as soon as conveniently might be, on a matter so important, and particularly affecting the poorer sort of my subjects. The urgency of the necessity called upon me, in the mean time, to exert my royal authority for the preservation of the public safety against a growing calamity, which could not admit of delay. I have, therefore, by and with the advice of my privy council, laid an embargo on wheat and wheat-flour going out of the kingdom, until the advice of parliament could be taken thereupon. If further provisions of law be requisite or expedient, with regard to the dearness
948
of corn, so necessary to the sustenance of the poorer sort, they cannot escape the wisdom of parliament, to which I recommend the due consideration thereof." On that occasion, very angry and lengthened debates had taken place as to the disrespect with which the parliament and the country had been treated by the ministers of the day, for attempting to screen themselves under an act of indemnity, instead of fore-arming themselves with the authority of the parliament for their proceeding; and I have no doubt, Sir, that if we were now to suffer the parliament to separate, and, if after its separation, a case should arise to render the introduction of foreign corn a matter of absolute necessity, that the king's ministers would be threatened on all hands with an impeachment, and every word that had been used against the government in the year 1766, would be triumphantly thrown in our teeth. Lord Mansfield had, in the course of the discussion that had taken place on that occasion, used these words:—"I will say, in general, that he is not a moderate minister who will rashly decide in favour of prerogative in a question where the rights of parliament are on their side: and I am sure he is not a prudent minister, who, even in a doubtful case, commits the prerogative by a wanton experiment to what degree the people will bear the extent of it. But, my lords, rashly and wilfully to claim or exercise as prerogative, a power clearly against law, is too great boldness for this country; and of all things in the world, the suspending or dispensing power, that edged tool which has cut so deep, is the last that any man in his wits would handle in England; that rock, which the English history has warned against with such awful beacons;—an attempt that lost one prince his crown, and another both his crown and his head; and at length expelled their family out of this land of liberty to the regions of tyranny, as the only climate that suited their genius and temper—a power, the exercise of which stands branded as the subversion of the constitution, in the front of that truly great charier of your liberties, the Bill of Rights. A minister, who is not afraid of that power, is neither fit for the sovereign nor the subject. I love a bold minister, when he keeps in the true sphere. In times of distress and danger, boldness is a jewel; and, with joy, I have seen bold, even wild, enterprises, succeed, though hardly within the die when undertaken. But the

949
enemies of our country are the proper objects of our boldness—not the constitution." Now, Sir, supported by this authority, I call on the House to grant to; the government that power which alone may be exercised by them, without in fringing on the principles of the constitution; a power intended only for the prevention of public calamity; a power calculated for the general safety of the people; and, as a friend of the agricultural interest, and convinced that the exercise of that power cannot be injurious to the possessors of land; and, anxious as I am for the permanent and satisfactory settlement of the law respecting the importation of foreign corn, I deprecate most earnestly the rejection of my right hon. friend's resolution.
Lord Althorpsaid, he must oppose the motion, because he considered it nothing less than an indirect and unfair tampering with the Corn-laws, and that it would, if carried into effect, place all the farms in the country at the mercy and disposal of his majesty's ministers. Was it pretended that it was absolutely necessary to dissolve parliament before the ensuing harvest? And, if not, surely there was sufficient time to enter minutely into the whole question, and set it at rest.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was anxious to see the Corn-laws repealed; but he took a different view of the present measure from his majesty's ministers, though he should vote with them upon it. The rise in the price of corn, which the right hon. Secretary had brought forward in proof of a deficiency, might be accounted for in a different way. During the time that our bankers and merchants were failing, there had been a considerable fall in the price of agricultural produce; but the panic having now, in a great measure, subsided, and confidence been partially restored, it was but natural to suppose that it would again rise. With regard to the fall in the price of cotton, and various other articles, quoted by the right hon. gentleman, it was well known, that vast speculations had taken place in all of them, and produced convulsions from which they had not yet recovered. There was, therefore, no just ground for the inference drawn from the rise in the one, and the fall in the other, that there was a deficiency of corn in the country. The measure which he would have preferred, and which government ought to have pursued, was a complete and final revision of
950
the whole system—a revision to which no valid objection had been offered, nor against which even the semblance of an argument adduced. If ever there was a time when this act of justice was called for, it was the present; for all the agitation, all the alarm, to which it could possibly have given rise, had been produced by the present measure.
Mr. Benettsaid, that though he had lost none of his repugnance to the measure now proposed, yet he should not make any very determined opposition to it. A right hon. gentleman had compared the prices of corn and cotton, but he did not think that a fair mode of stating the question. There was no similarity between them, and there was no ground of comparison. The right hon. gentleman had contrasted the fluctuations in the prices of wheat, as compared with other articles, in rather an unfair manner. He would contrast it in a way more likely to lead to a correct conclusion: he would compare the ten years preceding the year 1792 with the ten years preceding the year 1826, to show that wheat had not kept pace in its rise with other articles. The increase of price in the latter ten years over the former was as follows, in the undermentioned articles:—wine, 190 per cent; shoes, 200; hats, 200; bricks and tiles, 100; coals, 75; glass bottles, 72; butter, 25; labour (annual) 60; labour (daily) 33; wheat only 25 per cent; therefore the increase in favour of wheat was not as great as had been represented.
Sir W. W. Wynnsaid, he was glad that the House had agreed to give out to the country the corn in bond, as he conceived that it would prove a most seasonable relief to the unfortunate persons who were unhappily suffering from want of employment. He gave his most cordial consent to this motion, feeling, that if it should be found necessary to act upon it, a great and seasonable relief would be afforded to the country.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, that it was not his intention to occupy much of the time of the House, and he should not have risen at all, had it not been that frequent allusions had been made to the measure which he had brought forward, and so many charges thrown out against him for bringing it forward. Ministers had thrown in his teeth, that he had adopted a bad course, by agitating the question, after they had decided against any alteration of the law during the present session; but

951
the proposals with which they had now come down to the House bore ample testimony, that the course which he had pursued was salutary and proper. They deprecated the time which he had chosen to bring forward his motion, and gave him reason to believe that he would meet with their support, if he delayed it until the information which had been procured, had had time to make a due impression. But, how stood the fact? He gave notice of his motion early in the session, and fixed a day in March; but he did not bring it forward until April, from an apprehension, that it might affect the future harvest. Now, he could not see, if the 10th of April was an improper time for bringing forward his motion, how the 5th of May should not be so also; what was desirable in this care on the one day, must surely be desirable on the other. The discretionary power which was sought by ministers was most dangerous, and pregnant with more alarm than that which he had proposed. Look how the question was now met. He would have preferred that manner of treating it which would have led to the most ample discussion, and the most general information; but this desirable end was defeated by the present proposition. No new light had been acquired; and, from the narrow view which was taken of the subject, no new light could be struck out. He could not see how his conduct could be arraigned as injudicious. He might retort the charge, and assert, that the part which was acted by his majesty's ministers had not been that of discretion. The hon. member for Dorset had complained of him for taking up a subject to which he thought no individual in the House was competent; but if he had not persevered in bringing it forward, the period at which any effectual revision would have taken place, would have been still further removed than what it now was. The hon. member for Dorset took a strange view of the duties of members of parliament, if he thought that the importance of a question ought to deter them, individually, from meddling with it. He had exposed himself to much abuse and obloquy by agitating it; but he was conscious that he had done good. With regard to the present measure, he must confess, that he thought it desirable, before the present question was settled, that the Mouse should hear some account from his majesty's ministers of the way in which they intended to exercise the power which
952
they now sought; for though it might not be proper to settle either the time or the rate at which corn should be imported from abroad, it would be a matter of great alarm to agriculturists, if the question was left in that naked state in which it now was, and without that security being afforded them which he deemed to be necessary to their welfare. When the agriculturists came to know that the bonded wheat was to be released, and 500,000 quarters imported from abroad, in case of necessity, prices would fall, great alarm would be the result, and that alarm might last so long as to be very injurious to them. Supposing they were forced into the market just now, and it was afterwards discovered that there was an actual deficiency of grain in the country, it was evident that they would suffer great injury, and that the benefit of the measure would rest with the foreign grower. He should, therefore, like to know how the measure was to be carried into effect.
Mr. Secretary Canningassured the hon. member, that he had much mistaken him if he supposed that he meant to impute blame to him for the motion he had made. He had certainly spoken of the inconvenience to which it had put them, but he had never thought of denying the perfect right of the hon. gentleman to originate such a motion.
Lord Miltonsaid, he had no disposition to enter at any length upon the question before the House. Whatever vote he might ultimately give, he should make no opposition to the measure in its present stage. What he had risen principally to notice, was the speech of the hon. member for Denbighshire. The alteration which had taken place since Tuesday last, might convince him that the power of the landed interest was neither unseen, nor unfelt. He had no wish that it should be either unseen or unfelt. If in any observations which he had made respecting country gentlemen and landed proprietors, to which body he had the honour to belong, he had given them cause to feel aggrieved, he could safely say, that those observations were made with the view of attracting their attention to the subject. If they would do so, he felt persuaded that they would soon arrive at the same conclusion to which he had come; namely, that their own interests, and the interests of the country would be best promoted, by applying the same principles to corn, which

953
had been lately introduced with respect to other commodities. The hon. member had said, that 500,000 quarters would empty the granaries of the north, and had expressed a hope that the emptying of the warehouses in Lancashire would follow. That was the view which ought to be taken of the question: that was the true sense in which it ought to be looked at. Let there be an interchange of commodities—let there be freedom of commerce upon the broad principle of mutual advantage— and general prosperity would be the result. That prosperity could not be attained by supporting any one class of his majesty's subjects, at the expense of another. If the landowners would attend to this advantage, and to the thousand beneficial consequences which would result from it, they would see that there was but little ground for the alarm respecting free trade, which they appeared to entertain. Although the repeal of the Corn-laws would have a tendency to reduce rents, and to lower the price of corn, yet, when they considered the various advantages which they would derive from it in different ways, they would see that the loss on the one hand was countervailed by the gain on the other. With regard to the proposition itself, he must say, that the House had been grossly misused by his majesty's ministers. What was the proposition which they had made to the House, on Tuesday last? They sought the power of admitting foreign corn, at a duty of 12 s. per quarter; but an hon. member for a Welsh county happened to say, that 65 s. was a fair price, the price he presumed at which the hon. member could afford to raise his own wheat, and the right hon. gentleman instantly caught at it; yet, in the course of three days, he had contrived to change his mind, and now came down with a proposition, in which both duty and price were left wholly out of the question. He did not quarrel with the proposal to import a certain quantity of grain; but he did think that so many changes of opinion were but little creditable to the proposers, and that the House had good cause to complain of them for not knowing their own minds. [Mr. Canning said, across the table, what use, then, was there in such discussions?] True, ministers took care to avail themselves of this advantage. Formerly, their plans were first arranged and settled among themselves. The use of a cabinet or of a privy council was,
954
that they might do so; but the system was now changed, and, instead of coming forward with a well-digested plan, they asked for advice and information, and acted as they found the balance of votes in the House likely to be for or against them. He hailed the proposition under discussion as a harbinger of other measures to be brought forward next year; but ministers had acted far from wisely Tampering with the great subject of the Corn-laws, recommending one plan to-day and another to-morrow, and abandoning both for a third scheme on the day following, was much more likely to alarm and inflame the country, than a fair, open, and general discussion.
Mr. Calcraftadmitted, that the manner in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had treated the subject that evening did him great credit; but great credit was also due to those who compelled them to adopt this course. Although premature discussion had been censured on a former night, it had had the beneficial effect of occasioning the present modification of the original plan; which modification, he candidly confessed, seemed far less objectionable. What was now proposed was not a settlement of the question of the Corn-laws by a side wind; it had nothing to do with the duty or price; but it gave ministers a power to do a certain definite act, in the contemplation of a state of affairs, which probably might exist during the recess of parliament, instead of requiring them afterwards to call upon both Houses to grant them indemnity for a course which they had been imperatively called upon to pursue. His view of the condition of the country was at variance with that of the right hon. gentleman; but, Heaven forbid that he should set up his notion, formed, perhaps, without adequate means of knowledge, against the deliberate opinion of ministers, when the comfort, happiness, and tranquillity of the whole population was concerned. The pride of opinion should never carry him so far as to risk such sacred interests, even though he felt satisfied that he derived it from the best sources of information. One circumstance he could not understand. Corn at this moment was 7s. or 8s. per quarter lower than at this period last year; yet ministers then contemplated no such danger as they now apprehended, and to provide against which they were to be armed with extraordinary powers. The

955
very preparation almost created the danger. It was impossible to suppose that these discussions could go forth, with opinions emanating from such high authority, without producing great alarm; but this very circumstance rendered it the more necessary to trust to the responsibility of ministers, and to grant them what they required. At the same time, he must not be considered pledged beyond the present stage. He already saw vast difficulties in the execution of the plan, but he waited for the details before he came to any final decision. From this time forth, ministers took into their hands the power of settling the price of corn; the directors of the Bank had the power, by law, of settling the value of the currency; and the value of the bread of the country, by law, was to be confided to the directors of the Treasury; a heavy responsibility, but better than running the risk of the dangers produced, and threatened, by the bill of 1815. While that measure was under discussion, week after week, and day after day, he, and a miserable few who had acted with him, had warned ministers of the consequences. Their notions were scouted, laughed at, and hooted; but they, nevertheless, persevered in conjuring them not to expose the nation to the peril that must follow the fixing bread at a famine price for the great bulk of the community. He and his friends had been left in deplorable minorities; but he had had experience enough of the proceedings of that House not to be disconcerted, because he was beaten by majorities of three, or even of thirty to one. If his friends would now take his advice, it would be not to divide upon this stage of the proceeding, but to wait to see the whole of the measure, and to contemplate it in all its bearings, recollecting, that to ruin the manufacturing interest was to ruin the agricultural interest also. The Secretary for the Home Department had mentioned a great fall in different articles—cottons, Pernambucos, and other things; and the right hon. gentleman had observed upon the extraordinary fact, that there had not been a corresponding depression in the price of corn. The truth was, that the speculators in cotton and other articles had gone wild; and if the same course had been pursued in wheat, the same consequences would have followed. He would not detain the House longer at present, than to express his hope, that when the bill was introduced
956
he should not be called upon to give it further opposition.
Colonel Trenchobserved, that the sting appeared now to have been taken out of the scorpion's tail; and, although he did not think the measure in its present shape calculated to give much relief, yet he thought it would be cruel to withhold the power to do good which it did convey. He was surprised that no reference had been made to Ireland, which, from its soil and climate, was fully capable of supplying England with corn. There was only one thing wanting in Ireland to make such a plan eligible, and that was habits of industry in the people.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, that he had come down to the House to oppose the measure of ministers, but that the alteration made in it was so great, that he could no longer oppose it.
The resolution was then agreed to.

IRISH CHARTER SCHOOLS.
The Bishop of Fernsrose pursuant to notice, and said—My object in placing these letters upon your lordships table was, to make use of them for the defence of the committee by which the business of the
898
Charter-schools in Ireland is managed, usually denominated the Committee of Fifteen, from the number of its member, against what must appear to every person who reads the report of the commissioners of Education Inquiry to be a very heavy charge indeed, amounting to an imputation of culpable, I should, perhaps, say criminal, neglect of the duty which they had undertaken to perform. They act indeed gratuitously, but that should not be an excuse for wilful neglect. The system of management in these schools must be unknown to a great majority of your lordships: I shall beg leave to give a brief account of it. A charter was granted in 1733, incorporating the principal clergy and laity of Ireland, for the purpose of establishing schools for the instruction of the children of the poor natives, and for training them to religious and industrious habits. I cannot better describe the objects and the utility of the institution than by using the words of lord Chesterfield, when lord lieutenant of Ireland, who, when commending the bounty of parliament to it, called it a most prudent as well as a most compassionate charity, and recommended it to their constant protection and encouragement as an excellent institution, by which a considerable number of unhappy children were annually rescued from the misery that always, and the guilt that commonly, accompanies uninstructed poverty and idleness. A body so numerous as that which was thus incorporated could not transact business, a committee of fifteen was formed, to be elected annually, and to that committee the management of the schools was intrusted. To the body at large nothing was reserved except the power of settling leases, and of appointing and dismissing masters. These powers, I believe, could not legally be given to any committee; the former requiring directly the use of the seal of the corporation; the latter involving it indirectly; for if an appointment of a master was made out in form, it must be under the seal; and to dismiss a master, the instrument of his appointment must be cancelled, which could only be done by the power which had executed it. The advantages of local inspection suggested the appointment of local committees, consisting of such ladies and gentlemen as were willing to undertake this duty. This system is relied upon as one of the objections to the establishment. The local committee are

899
represented as acting under the influence of personal prejudices in favour of the master; the committee of fifteen, as discouraging the exertions of the local committee, and rejecting its applications; and the body at large as preventing the committee of fifteen from dismissing masters, unless direct proof of their criminality was given. My lords, I know not of any human institutions against which objections may not be made. In all cases it is necessary to take the best precautions within our reach. But I confess it does appear to me to be very absurd to refuse to act unless these precautions are such as to make error or wrong-doing impossible. If we want local information, we must be content to find it mixed with local prejudices. If we want a central government to regulate the application of funds to several establishments, we must be content to place it at a distance, and to remedy the defect of local knowledge by the best means in our power. That the superintendence and the discipline exercised towards the masters of the schools were strict, appears from facts stated in the report made by the commissioners. It appears that, in the space of twenty-four years, from the year 1800 to the time of making the report, thirty-two masters had been dismissed, and seventeen had resigned; that the resignations were to avoid actual dismissal is not doubted. Thus forty-nine masters were removed from the schools in less than half as many years—a degree of severity in the exercise of corrective power that I apprehend most people would deem fully sufficient. The means resorted to by the committee that manages the Charter schools, for obtaining information as to their state are, to require that the catechist —I should have stated that a clergyman, generally the curate of the parish in which the school is situated, is appointed under the title of catechist, which sufficiently describes his duty.—He is required every time he visits the school to enter a memorandum of the state in which he finds it in a book kept for that purpose. And every visitor who comes to the school is requested to do the same; and an attested copy of that book is sent up every half year to the committee of fifteen. I am in possession of some original returns of that nature, and, should any of your lordships wish it, I can produce them. As a specimen out of the entries made by visitors, I beg leave to state an entry in the book
900
of Santry-school, for training school-masters, made by the rev. Lewis Way, a gentleman whose exertions in the cause of benevolence have probably made his name known to some of your lordships. It was made in 1820, shortly after the commencement of the plan: "Having witnessed the examination of twelve boys of this school, who are designed for schoolmasters and teachers; and having examined them myself in the material points of our holy religion; I can truly say I was astonished at their progress in divine knowledge. The questions I put were not connected with any catechism or form of words, but arose out of the subjects before them, in reading promiscuously at the time. Of all the young persons I ever examined, these gave me the most entire satisfaction. They do great credit to their habitual instructor, and to those who interest themselves in the care of the establishment, the continuance of which will, in my opinion, be more conducive to the best interests of the community than any I have visited.—Signed, Lewis Way, A. M. Wanstead Park, Sussex." In addition to this copy, which enables the committee of fifteen to see the state of the school, and to learn the degree of attention which the catechist pays to his duty, there is sent up, every half year, a list of the children in each school, specifying the business they have been employed upon during the preceding half year, and the progress each has made, and containing also remarks upon the character of each. Original returns of this sort are in my possession, and I can show them now, if required. These separate reports are stated in the evidence given before the commissioners by the secretary of the society. The statement will be found at p. 202 and 204 of the appendix of their report. That last, however, had not been recollected by the commissioners in drawing up their report, for in p. 25 they explicitly state that the monthly letters which the catechists were required to write were the only regular means the committee of fifteen had of obtaining information of the condition of the schools since the discontinuance of the office of visitor. From what I have stated to your lordships, it is clear that these letters were not the only, means of information which the committee of fifteen possessed, and that the committee were in possession of evidence which proved that they were not; and now I

901

come to the letters themselves. The report, in the part now referred to, goes on to give an extract from the secretary's evidence, which concludes by his seeming to state that, for the preceding nine months, not one letter had been received, from any catechist. It was with reference to this report that I called for the letters now open upon your lordships' table. On referring to the secretary's evidence, p. 202 of the appendix, your lordships will find that he stated previously to the commissioners that the practice was for the catechists to write only when any circumstance occurred in the school requiring to be communicated to the committee of fifteen. And it appears that the half-yearly reports, and the half-yearly copies of the visitors' books, had gradually superseded the monthly communications; they containing, in fact, weekly reports of the state of each school. Of these occasional letters, sixty-eight had been received during that part of the year 1824, to which the report of the commissioners referred. I shall content myself with saying, that the report in omitting to notice them, though actually in the possession of the commissioners, carries upon the face of it the marks of being too hastily made up. It might be supposed that the evidence of the secretary had deceived the commissioners; but certainly had it been attended to, it would not have deceived them. On comparing it as given in the report, and as given in the appendix, it will be found that the former is materially defective, The last answer but one in the report, page 25, is this—"Upon my word I doubt it." The question had been as to whether no letter had been received from the catechists? The words that should have been added, as may be seen in the Appendix, page 215, are "not regular monthly letters;" and his meaning clearly was, that no catechist had strictly conformed to the rule of writing a letter every month, as he had but two days before explained in his evidence, given at page 202. My lords, it was a very severe charge against the committee of fifteen, that they had remained for nine months in total ignorance of the state of all the schools under their care—for such is the charge made in the report. Had the commissioners recollected the evidence, they would have known that two half-yearly reports from every school, such as I have described, had been made to that committee during that period, and that two copies of the
902
visitor's and catechist's book had also been sent up from each school, and that 68 letters had also been written by the catechists during the same period; and had they examined those letters, they would have found that the most trifling occurrences were thought to require communication from the catechist, and the least delay in making such communication was censured by the committee. The charge against the committee of fifteen, and against the local committees, and the catechists, of having suffered barbarous punishments to be inflicted, has been, I believe, very sufficiently answered. It was made against the master of Sligo, the usher of Stradbally, and some others, in such terms, as drew censures on government for not having instantly directed prosecutions to be commenced against the offenders. Orders to that effect were given; but, amongst the cases stated, only three were found capable of bearing indictments: even the case of the eight boys at Stradbally, whose persons are described as having been found in a shocking state of laceration and contusion (p. 17), and upon whom the punishment is represented as having been inflicted through malice, was abandoned as incapable of proof. And what was the fate of the three prosecutions actually undertaken? Two of them were defeated without the jury quitting the box, and the third was abandoned. Upon the subject of punishment, I have only to observe, that but one instance is produced of a boy having been so punished as to be kept for a single day from school, and for that instance, we are carried back ten or eleven years. It is, indeed, stated, that boys were punished for complaining of any misconduct of either master or usher; and the case of a boy named Best is mentioned [p. 21] as having been punished in the face of the whole school at Sligo, for having made a complaint, and a reference is given to No. 82 of the Appendix for the proof. Now, on referring to the Appendix, p. 158, we find the sort of evidence upon which this charge rests:—A boy of the name of Doyle states that it was not for having complained, but for some fault that he had committed, that the boy was punished; but that the master had malice against him for making the complaint, and that he conjectured that to have been the real cause of the punishment. And we find in the evidence of Ludden,

903
a boy of the same school, that he expressly swears (p. 175) that he never beard of any thing having happened to Best in consequence of his having complained.—It is clear, therefore, that the evidence does not bear out the statement that Best was punished for having made a complaint in the face of the whole school. It would be useless to go through a complete examination of all the statements in the Report, by comparing them with the evidence. What I have already laid before your lordships is, I believe, very sufficient to show the Report was drawn up rather hastily, and that the committee of fifteen were not guilty of quite so much remissness as is charged against it. But this, it will be said, is no defence of the system itself, which is radically bad, as separating children from their kindred, and turning them out into life without friends or relatives, and without that practical experience which children in ordinary circumstances require. How apprenticing a child into a family, the master and mistress of which are to instruct him, can be considered as turning the child out into life, I profess I cannot comprehend. As to separating them from their kindred, that, I apprehend, is but too frequently in Ireland conferring a great benefit. However, let us see how stands that fact. Of those in the schools last August, when I got returns, 984, nearly one-half of the whole number were orphans, or foundlings; and of 925, whose petitions for admission were before the Society, 662 were either orphans, or, being deprived of one of their parents, were left either to a mother who could not support, or to a father who could not superintend, them. But, my lords, the word separating is somewhat of an ambiguous nature. It leans towards that charge which represents the schools as tearing children from their parents.—It ought to be known, that the admittance into the Charter schools is solicited as a favour. There must be a petition from the parent, or, in case of an orphan, from the nearest relation, praying for the admission of the child, and giving, in express words, consent to its being educated a Protestant; and there must be a certificate, from some respectable person, that the facts contained in that petition are true. It is, indeed stated, in the Report, that at one time parents were so unwilling, to part with their children, that it became necessary to build nurseries, that a constant supply
904
of children might be provided. How the nurseries were to be supplied with children when parents would not part with them, the Report has not thought it necessary to inform us; and yet it seems rather difficult to explain it. I should reckon this also to be a proof that the Report had not been considered quite as carefully as was requisite. Of this haste, there is a curious proof given in page 29, where a calculation is made of the expense that would be incurred were the Charter schools so extended as to admit seventeen or eighteen children annually from every parish in Ireland. It is rated at twenty millions per annum; and the error in the estimate amounts to sixteen millions, or within a trifle of it. The calculation is not difficult; it consists in multiplying 35 by half the number of parishes in Ireland, that is, by 1,200— the product by 7 (the average time spent in a Charter school), and that by 14 (the average expense in pounds, of maintenance). It were well if the errors in calculation were limited to this imaginary case. The most important error, as I conceive, in the whole report, lies in the calculation made of the utility of the institution, as compared with its expense. We are told in page 30, that the expense has been at the rate of a million for 7,905 children apprenticed; and the advantage of the institution is stated as consisting in having apprenticed, since its commencement, 12,745 children. And does the advantage of education terminate with the individual upon whom it has been bestowed? My lords, if there be any benefit conferred on man, in which his posterity participates, it is religious education. It would be an unwarrantable waste of your lordships' time, upon which I have already trespassed too long, to go into a proof of such a truism: in fact, the advantage extends much further than to the immediate family of the individual. I shall take it, however, as being so limited; I shall take the annual admissions into the Charter schools, since their commencement, at only 180 per annum; and at a low rate of increment, they and their descendants amount to upwards of 138,000, of whom upwards of 80,000 are alive at the present day. In this calculation I did not rely upon myself. It rests upon the authority of one of the best mathematicians in Ireland, Dr. Robinson, the Professor of Astronomy at Armagh. It has been my object, my lords, while defending the

905
conduct of the committee of fifteen, to make such a statement as should prove that the Report of the Committee of Education Inquiry had not been considered as carefully as might have been desired; and that the system which it attacks is of far too great importance to Ireland to be put down without the most grave deliberation.
Lord Kingobserved, that the reverend prelate had at least failed in one point which he had promised to establish; namely, that the catechists had not failed in their duty, and had complied with the rules of their office. The reverend lord appeared to be very angry with the Report, against which he directed the principal part of his resentment. The reverend lord had spent the greater part of his life in Ireland; but when he had been a little longer in this country, he would find, to use the phraseology of the noble lord at the head of the Treasury, that it was not the fashion here to make a scandalous misuse of the public money. And a greater misapplication of the public money he did not know of, than that of the Chartered schools in Ireland. For these schools there had been paid 1,600,000 l.— one million in parliamentary grants, and the remainder in some other way; and during the whole term of the existence of these schools, nearly a century, there had been only 7,900 children apprenticed. Now, he saw no occasion for such a waste of public money for such a purpose, where every resident clergyman was bound by his oath to teach the English language, and to keep a school for that purpose, taking such convenient stipend as the custom of the place warranted. This being the law, he contended that the clergyman had no more right to his tithe than the poor children of the place had to their learning. It was a miserable excuse to say that 40 s. was the ancient stipend, and that it was now impossible to find a schoolmaster to do the duty for that sum of money, because, as the clergy had raised their tithes, so they might raise the amount of salary for this purpose. The neglect of duty, with reference to this point, extended to the whole spiritual staff of Ireland. The primate, and other high dignitaries of the church of Ireland, were, he believed, officially chargeable with the right management of these schools, and yet, as appeared by the Report, there were, out of 31 dioceses, only 10 in which there were proper efficient school-houses;
906
21 were totally deficient, and in all the teaching was very bad. The whole contribution furnished by the Irish church was no more than 600 l. The reason of so many abuses being allowed to exist was, that the board of fifteen, which had supreme control, seemed to think it their duty to support all abuses in the inferior clergy, as though they had a vested interest in the exclusive management of their schools. The Report contained numerous charges of negligence on the catechists, which it was impossible to get over. In the Sligo school, for instance, why was such an abuse allowed to exist, as that the children should be subjected to a sort of "slave labour," entirely for the benefit of the master? It seemed, according to the Report, that the object there was, not how much could be taught them, but how much work could be got out of them. And yet the reverend prelate undertook, with this abuse staring him in the face, to justify the conduct of the catechists, and show that they had done their duty. It was really curious to look at some of the quarterly returns sent from these schools. In some of them he found that the actual miracle was accomplished of making people live long in the world and grow younger. If any of their lordships would look at the reports to which he referred, they would find this to be the case. The boys' names and ages were put down in these lists. He found amongst the names, for instance, one David Porter, a youth, no doubt, of excellent parts, but to whom he could not give the credit of being able to remain stationary at the age of sixteen for four years. But this was affirmed by the lists in question. Another boy, it appeared, was 14 one year, 14 also the next, and 13 the year after. Another appeared to remain at the age of 15 for two years, and then he became 17, and the following year was 15 again. These were falsehoods so obvious, that really the catechists ought to have seen them, and must have seen them, if they had discharged their duty. As to the state of learning in the schools, it appeared by the Report, that in one school there were only three boys who had ever heard of St. Paul, and only one who had ever heard of Europe. The charge of cruelty was also fully made out by the testimony of those who saw the shocking laceration of the boys. It was said, that the usher was fully exculpated by the trial which ensued; but he thought nothing of that, for he had never

907
yet heard of a slave-owner that was cruel to his slaves, when it came to trial; and be supposed it was just the same with the ushers in those schools. It was not, however, upon the words of the Report only, that he relied for a case of abuse against those schools. Mr. Haward had said, on a former occasion, that he found them in a "dreadful situation;" Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke of the "barbarous treatment" he witnessed in them; and Mr. Disney actually resigned, because he could not prevail on those whose duty it was, to rectify, the abuses. Thus, then, was the Report confirmed; and the fact was, that the whole plan of the system was, to take Catholic children from their parents, and bring them up in the Protestant faith. The resident clergy, he must say, did not do their duty with respect to education. He was sorry to say that they had long lived in habitual neglect of their duty, in defiance of the law, and in contempt of their oaths. For his own part, he must say, that he never would consent to one farthing of the public money being voted for the maintenance of those schools. In one case it appeared the master of the school lent money to some of the officers, which could be for no other purpose but to induce them to conceal abuses in his school. In another instance the wife of the schoolmaster was actually the contractor for the clothing of the children; and all those things were brought to light by strangers—not by those whose duty it was to discover them.
The Bishop of Fernssaid, that it would be merely necessary for him, in reply to the observations of the noble lord, to refer to the Report of the commissioners, in which they stated that these schools were conducted with good order, and in a manner highly creditable to those who had the superintendence of them.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he felt quite assured, from the inquiries which had taken place, and from the knowledge thus obtained by the king's government, that something would ere long be done towards the amelioration of the system. He had read, with great diligence, the exculpatory papers moved for by the learned prelate, and had also looked over the Report of the commissioners, and he must say, that the impression made by them differed very much from that which they seemed to have produced on the mind of the learned prelate. Letters were occasionally transmitted from seven-
908
teen of the schools, but no regular monthly reports. From these letters he should be disposed to draw inferences not at all favourable to the management of Charter schools in Ireland. Even in the very first page of the exculpatory documents, reference was made to a girl, who had been appointed teacher, though known to be a person of immoral propensities, having been detected in acts of thieving during the time that she had been a scholar in the institution. In the next page it was said, that schools could not go on for want of books; and in page 11 it appeared that out of 72 scholars, there were only two eligible to act as teachers, and that even those two were deficient in the necessary qualifications. Such were specimens of hese highly useful seminaries. He did not hesitate to say, that such management was disgraceful to the country. He was willing to admit that the commissioners had done their duty with zeal and propriety. The probability was, that these letters had never passed through their hands.
The Earl of Darnleycondemned, in severe terms, the principle on which Charter schools were managed in Ireland, particularly the practice of taking Roman Catholic children from their parents, and bringing them up in the Protestant faith.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, there was no institution without some faults. It could not be denied that there had been gross errors and abuses in the management of those schools; but he trusted the inquiry would be productive of good, and that the patrons of such establishments would, in future, be more careful in the management of them. He hoped nothing that had been said that night would tend to prejudice the furtherance of education in Ireland; for there was no country on the face of the globe where religious education was more wanting.
Here the conversation dropped.