Sitting of 11 May 1826

PETITION OF COLONEL BRADLEY, COMPLAINING OF THE CONDUCT OF COLONEL ARTHUR.
Mr. Humesaid, he had been

1099
requested to present a petition from colonel Bradley, late in the West-India service, complaining of having undergone a series of unmerited injuries, and been visited with ruin and disgrace for the upright and honest discharge of his duty as a British officer. The petitioner had been twenty years in his majesty's service, and had attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the second West-India regiment. Two of his commissions he had purchased, and was promoted by service to the rank he ultimately attained. For eighteen years he was exposed to all the perils of the inhospitable climate of the West Indies, and in proof of the uniform propriety of his conduct, and the unwearied activity of his services, he appealed to the documents and testimonies in the offices of the commander-in-chief and earl Bathurst, and to the written and verbal declarations of his royal highness the duke of York, sir Henry Torrens, sir Herbert Taylor, sir George Cockburn, and other distinguished individuals. In the year 1819, the regiment of the senior officer in command at Honduras, colonel Arthur, was put upon half-pay. The consequence was, that he became incapable of holding a command, in virtue of his mere rank upon the half-pay list. The petitioner being at that time second in command, the whole responsibility and charge, according to the regulations of the British army, devolved upon him. Because, however, he thought fit respectfully to insist upon his right to the command, he was put under arrest, confined for a period of ten months, deprived of the benefit of a court martial, and finally, by the insidious arts and misrepresentations of his enemies, was dismissed from the service, with a right of sale of a majority only. The dependency of Honduras was governed by a superintendant, appointed by the governor of Jamaica. In July, 1814, colonel, then major Arthur, was appointed to that office, which was purely of a civil nature. At that time, the military command belonged to major Massey. It remained with him till the December following, when by his resignation, it devolved upon colonel Arthur, in his capacity of senior regimental commissioned officer on the station. In 1818, the petitioner arrived at Honduras; and found himself by the date of his commission, second in command. Early in the next year, official intelligence was received of the reduction of colonel
1100
Arthur's regiment, the York Chasseurs. Several conversations took place between the petitioner and colonel Arthur, in which the latter always stated, that he was perfectly aware that the reduction of his regiment would deprive him of his command. In June 1819, the York Chasseurs embarked at Jamaica, and in August were disbanded in Canada; but no notice was taken by colonel Arthur; though it had since been proved by his own returns, that he had received notification of his being placed on half-pay, on the 25th of October. The petitioner, feeling the deep responsibility of his situation, applied to colonel Arthur, and became urgent to know on what authority he continued to hold the command. Colonel Arthur, however, would give no further explanation of his conduct, than, by asserting, that he had received letters informing him that he was to remain on full pay. The petitioner feeling his anxiety increased every day, by the unsatisfactory and mysterious proceedings of colonel Arthur; and having tried every conciliatory means in vain, and exhausted every verbal remonstrance, deemed it his duty to address a respectful letter to him, on the 22nd of May, 1820, calling on him to state the authority by which he still continued to hold the command of the king's troops, after it was notorious that his regiment had been disbanded. To this letter colonel Arthur returned no answer, but convened an irregular and motley assemblage of civil and military persons, to take it into consideration. The petitioner declined to attend this meeting, though he stated his readiness to wait upon colonel Arthur in private. In consequence of this refusal he was arrested, and stigmatised in garrison orders as a person guilty of unmilitary, insubordinate, and mutinous conduct. He requested to be brought before a court martial without delay, and called for a copy of the charges against him. He was kept in close custody in that pestilential climate 312 days. Amidst the various subterfuges brought forward to frustrate the petitioner's applications for justice, it had been asserted, that colonel Arthur held a commission, dated as far back as 1814. Whether his conduct could be affected by a document he had never seen, and which was never made known to the troops at Honduras, the petitioner did not stop to inquire; but he affirmed, that this commission had never

1101
been heard of, until, in 1824 it was brought forward as a pretext for supporting colonel Arthur's authority in a court of law. While the petitioner was under confinement, he sent at different times three reports to sir Henry Torrens, as colonel of the regiment; but none of these communications were noticed. Finally, while expecting an opportunity of vindicating his character, he learned with grief and astonishment, that he was removed from the army with the sale of a majority only, and that was disposed of while his royal highness the commander-in-chief knew that he was a prisoner at Honduras. The petitioner, finding all redress denied, was compelled to institute an action at law against colonel Arthur for false imprisonment, which having come to trial, sir Henry Torrens and sir Herbert Taylor were examined as witnesses. Sir Henry Torrens swore that four general orders had been issued, which conferred the power on colonel Arthur; yet, after the case for the plaintiff had been closed, the opposite party produced a commission, said to have been given by general Fuller in 1814, and which both sir Henry Torrens and sir Herbert Taylor swore gave him the command. Upon the trial, a verdict was obtained by colonel Bradley, from which it must necessarily be inferred, that colonel Arthur was only entitled to imprison colonel Bradley so long as he continued in the service, and that the extension of the imprisonment beyond that period was a grievance calling for damages. Colonel Bradley further complained, that pending his action with colonel Arthur, the government thought proper to send that gentleman out of the country, by means whereof he was unable to recover either the damages, the costs, or his expenses. Thus after twenty years of arduous duty in the service of his country, was this gentleman dismissed from his station in the army, which he had filled, not only without reproach, but with the entire satisfaction and approbation of his fellow officers. He therefore considered the case one of extreme hardship, to be thus dismissed and thus disgraced, when the very highest degree of charge that could be made out against him was an error of judgment, arising from a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the rules of the service. He had examined those rules, and it was his decided opinion, that according to the construction of those rules, colonel Bradley had a
1102
right to the command of the troops; for in no case ought an officer on half-pay to have the power to command an officer on full pay; and such an assumption on the part of colonel Arthur was contrary to the rules of the service. Let the House remember, that colonel Bradley was in that situation, that had he not attempted to obtain the command of the troops, he was liable to have been brought to a court martial for having obeyed those very orders which he was now accused of violating. It was a matter of the last importance, in a country like this, where there were 15,000 officers on full and half pay, that these points should be fully ascertained; for if it were to be admitted, that an officer on half-pay could assume the command of those who were on full pay, it would open the door to great disputes and the utmost inconvenience. It appeared to him, therefore, that the petitioner was well grounded in his complaints; but then it was alleged, that colonel Arthur had in his possession a commission from general Fuller, the commanding officer of the station; but the petitioner appealed to the army at large to say whether they had ever heard of such a commission; and even if it had been granted, that it could never have been valid, unless published to the army. Unless it had been published, he had no right to be censured, for having in ignorance of its existence, conformed to the rules of the service. But colonel Bradley went further, and declared, that although sir H. Torrens, and sir H. Taylor swore on the trial to the validity of the commission, he was now prepared with the most unquestionable evidence to prove that such a commission was not in existence at the time when colonel Arthur assumed the command; and he exclaimed against the manifest injustice of having been injured by an ex post facto deed, which was manufactured for the purpose of preventing him from obtaining that verdict to which he was entitled. Whether sir H. Torrens did or did not swear that at the trial which was not founded in fact, it was not for him to give an opinion; he only stated the allegations of the petitioner. Having been thus defeated in his appeal to the laws of his country for redress, and having gone through some other forms which he did not understand, he had only further to add, although he had not entered fully into the details of this transaction, that he had stated substan-

1103
tially the petitioner's case, and quite enough, in his judgment, to warrant him in approaching that House as the only place that could afford him protection against the abuse of that power which the constitution had placed in his majesty's hands. With such a standing army in the country, it was a great hardship that there should be placed the power, at the wish and pleasure of one man of hurling a meritorious officer down from the station to which he had ascended, after years of arduous service and irreproachable conduct, without court-martial, or any inquiry-whatever, which might have the effect, if; not to re-establish him in his rank, at least to defend his honour against unmerited charges. Colonel Bradley after twenty years service eighteen of which were spent in a tropical climate, had his fortunes ruined and his honour disgraced, and therefore it was, he appealed to the parliament of his country. There were some technicalities in his case into which he had not entered, and the more particularly, as an hon. and learned friend below him who had conducted the cause, was intimately acquainted with all the circumstances, and would probably explain them better than he could—He, therefore, concluded in the words of the petitioner: "he humbly but earnestly implores your honourable House, as the protectors of the rights of individuals, and the vigilant and zealous guardians over the control of all public departments, to take the premises into your most serious consideration, in order that justice, too long withheld, may be rendered to an innocent individual, whom even his oppressors admit to be a meritorious officer." He now begged leave to bring up the petition.
Mr. Butterworthdefended the character of colonel Arthur, than whom no man in the service bore a higher character. As to the dispute between him and the petitioner, he was enabled to assure the House that colonel Arthur had been regularly continued in his command, and that it was in his own defence that he arrested colonel Bradley, whose conduct in assuming the command had well nigh led to an insurrection in the colony. Colonel Bradley had had a verdict of 100 l. but the ground of that was, that he had been kept in arrest after he had lost his commission.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was desirous to make a few remarks upon the petition which had been just presented, containing charges the most insupportable
1104
—namely, that a certain commission had been produced on his trial, which commission was forged, and stating that certain high persons were guilty of perjury. The hon. member opposite had afforded him an opportunity of seeing the petition; and, although he had not detailed the circumstances, he was enabled to see the character of the petition; and he would put it to the House whether a petition, containing such unfounded charges, ought to be received. Now what were the circumstances of the case? In 1814, colonel Arthur was appointed civil superintendent of Honduras, and general Fuller was governor of the Jamaica station. In 1817 an order was issued, stating that the civil superintendent should command the troops. Under these circumstances it was that colonel Bradley took upon himself to say that he had the right to command; although it was obvious that colonel Arthur had never commanded in consequence of his regimental rank; for, in fact, his regiment never was in that colony. His authority to command was founded upon a commission from gen. Fuller, and the orders issued in this country; how then did colonel Bradley conduct himself? That gentleman insisted, that he ought to be commander of the troops, and actually issued garrison orders. Colonel Arthur expostulated with him, and sent captain Noel to him, telling him it was better that nothing should be done until they had received instructions from the authorities at home. What was colonel Bradley's reply? "I have submitted to this too long. I shall have nothing to do with colonel Arthur. I will be trifled with no longer." Why, then, under these circumstances, colonel Arthur had no other course to pursue. Now, to shew the accuracy of the statement of colonel Bradley: he stated that he had been imprisoned for ten months, whereas his learned friend opposite who had conducted the cause of the Petitioner, stated on the trial, that he had a document to prove, that colonel Bradley had been in close arrest for two months. It was therefore most material that this case should not be misrepresented, as it was in the petition. Now for another instance. Colonel Bradley says, he had been dismissed from the army in consequence of the misstatements of colonel Arthur; but he held in his hand the document by which colonel Bradley was dismissed by his royal highness the commander-in-chief, and that document stated,

1105
that the resolution of dismissing him had been founded on the inconsistency and impropriety of his conduct, as demonstrated by his own representations. Again: the petitioner states, that sir H. Torrens swore on the trial to the validity of a particular commission, whereas sir H. Torrens said nothing at all about the matter. And yet the petitioner states, not only that this commission was forged, but forged for the base purpose of defeating the administration of justice. There was another charge against sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor; namely, that they had deposed to the existence of certain general orders which never were in being. Now, the fact was this:—In answer to a question from the chief-justice, sir H. Torrens said, that certain garrison orders had been issued, conferring this authority on colonel Arthur. Now this order was merely applicable to the civil superintendent, although in the course of the evidence, it was called a general order, not in a military sense, but general only as applicable to the colony. He therefore submitted to the House, that it was not competent to an individual, after having appealed to a court of justice, and finding the decision on the main point of the case against him, to come to that House and scatter those unfounded imputations. The only question at the trial was whether the authority to command the troops at Honduras was suspended by the reduction of the regiment to which the commander belonged? And, at the trial, neither in the evidence or depositions was such a principle admitted. In fact, the depositions of general Conran put the question beyond all doubt, that colonel Arthur had the just and proper command of the garrison. His hon. and learned friend opposite had applied for a new trial, and had argued the case with great ability, learning, and perseverance, and the court decided, and thereby confirmed the judgment at Nisi Prius, that the reduction of colonel Arthur's regiment had nothing to do with his military command. If the petitioner had confined himself to complaints, he should have felt it unnecessary to have spoken on the subject; but when he states that a verdict was obtained by fraud and perjury, and charges those who conducted that suit with a desire to pervert the ends of justice, he thought the House ought to pause before they received a petition containing such gross charges, or allow themselves to be made a medium of circulating throughout the country the most unwar-
1106
rantable reflections on individuals of the highest character in the country. Upon these grounds it was, that, although he should hot oppose the bringing up the petition, he should object to any further step with regard to it.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the reply of the Attorney-general consisted rather of an attack on colonel Bradley, than of an exculpation of those who were affected by the charges contained in the petition. Although colonel Bradley might have mixed up with his case circumstances which had been as well omitted, yet that was not the main point of the case. He had no doubt colonel Bradley was in error, in supposing that sir H. Torrens, and sir H. Taylor would decend to the acts imputed to them; but if colonel Arthur was actually in possession of the commission, as he stated, for what possible object could he conceal it? Why allow colonel Bradley to resort to measures which might have led to insurrection in the colony, when he had a commission in his pocket, which, if colonel Bradley had common sense, must have immediately satisfied him? Colonel Bradley applied personally, and wrote officially, to colonel Arthur, calling upon him to state his right to retain the command, but no authority was produced, and he therefore thought colonel Bradley had reason to complain of extreme hardship. With respect to the power of dismal from the army without court martial, that was a question on which his opinions were already known, and he should not, therefore go into it: but if it were a power to be exercised at all, it was one so fearful and extensive, that it ought to be under the control of the utmost caution. Here was an individual who had long and faithfully served his country, and was dismissed without an opportunity of having the charges investigated. It was one of the complaints of colonel Bradley, that up to this hour he had never seen the charges which had been preferred against him. Another of his difficulties was, that government had undertaken the defence of colonel Arthur; and by appointing him to a foreign station, had relieved him from the payment of costs and damages. He therefore hoped, that the Attorney-general would not object to the allowing the petition to be printed, lest, thereby, the injustice and oppression which it imputed might go unredressed.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that if the pe-

1107
tition had been confined to the mere complaints of the petitioner, he should not rise to oppose its reception; nor should he oppose its being read and printed, did it not contain charges the most unfounded against two men of as high honour as any in the country; namely, sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor—which were libels so gross as to compel him to oppose any motion for the printing of the petition. Now, what does colonel Bradley expect the House to do? That gentleman appealed to a court of justice, for the purpose of shewing that his conduct was justified by law, and in that appeal he failed—he appealed again, and was again unsuccessful; and he was. therefore warranted in saying, that colonel Bradley had no legal ground of complaint. With respect to his military conduct, the case was quite clear. Colonel Bradley had been guilty of gross insubordination, amounting almost to mutiny; and in consequence of his conduct he was dismissed from the army—not on the representation of colonel Arthur, but on the consideration and investigation of his own statements, as compared with those of colonel Arthur. Colonel Bradley was quite mistaken in supposing that the disbandment of colonel Arthur's regiment produced any alteration in his military authority. As his regiment had never been in that colony, it was impossible he should ever have command by virtue of his regimental rank; but it did so happen, that even if there had been any doubt about it, the question was decided by actual circumstances. Colonel Arthur had first belonged to the 7th West-India regiment, which was reduced in 1816, and that officer was put on half-pay. Now, did the reduction of his regiment affect his military command? No such thing. He continued to command the garrison just the same as when he was on full pay. He therefore stated, that previous circumstances had decided the question, as to whether the being on half-pay affected the command of the colony. But it was said, that colonel Massey had exercised the military command after colonel Arthur had been placed on half-pay. Now, this was disproved by the returns in the Commander-in-chief's office; so that colonel Bradley was mistaken in all his facts. How was an officer to act in a distant colony? Colonel Arthur offered to transmit to the Horse-guards any communications which colonel Bradley might think

1108
necessary. But colonel Bradley was guilty of the grossest insubordination; and if colonel Arthur had not acted in the manner he had done he would have proved himself unfit for the situation in which he was placed, and have subjected himself to the serious displeasure of the commander-in-chief. It was therefore clear, that colonel Bradley having been guilty of this kind of insubordination, deserved to be dismissed from the service. But he would also state, that he had been treated with great indulgence; for, although he had been removed from the army, he was permitted to sell his majority, having only purchased his ensigncy and company; and, when colonel Bradley preferred those charges against sir H. Torrens, it was only fit to state, that it was on the personal recommendation of sir H. Torrens that colonel Bradley was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel; so that he was guilty of the greatest ingratitude in placing on the table charges against sir H. Torrens so utterly ungrounded. With respect to his own conduct in the transaction, he had felt it his duty to recommend that the case of colonel Arthur should be conducted at the public expense, and he should have been guilty of a dereliction of duty if he had not done so. It would be hard indeed, if, when an officer had discharged the duty he owed his country, and was dragged into a court of justice, he should be subjected to all the expense and inconvenience; but, at the same time, he must add, that it was no part of his instructions to pay the expenses attendant on the extension of the imprisonment of colonel Bradley beyond its proper period. The ground upon which the court had directed a verdict in favour of colonel Bradley was, that he should have been released on the first intimation of his being placed on half-pay. However, it was fair to state, that the intimation received by colonel Arthur was not that colonel Bradley had been put on half-pay, but that it was intended to do so. According to the usual course, the communication of the fact must have been made by Jamaica, so that necessarily an interval must have elapsed between communicating the intention and carrying it into execution. Upon these grounds, then, first, that colonel Bradley asks that which the House could not grant; and that it was improper that the House of Commons should be made instrumental in circulating unfounded calumnies he must

1109
give his opposition to the bringing up this petition.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the circumstances which had been adverted to by his hon. and learned friend opposite, namely, that he had been professionally engaged in the cause, induced him to come forward to avoid any unjust inferences being drawn from his silence. He had always considered it expedient that professional men should abstain from interfering in that House on questions in which they had been professionally engaged; and the reasons for such a course were too obvious to require explanation. These remarks would not apply to his hon. and learned friend opposite, who stood in the capacity of a public officer, and as such was bound to conduct proceedings of this nature. As the court had decided in a particular manner, and as that decision was final, he was not at liberty to comment upon it; but he had always understood, from the very beginning of this cause, that the highest imputation against colonel Bradley was an error of judgment. With respect to the charges preferred by the petitioner against certain honourable persons, he would fain hope the House would pause before they adopted, as a principle, that no charge was to be printed amongst their votes which happened to reflect upon high individuals. He must say here, that with respect to the charges preferred against these honourable persons, he knew nothing at all about them; but having read the petition, he must differ with his hon. and learned friend in supposing that there was any thing in it personally offensive to the gentleman alluded to. All the petition did was to accuse some person of having forged a certain commission; colonel Arthur not having produced that commission when he was repeatedly called upon to do so. He could not recognize the principle, that the House had a right to refuse a petition, because it contained charges against individuals, how high so ever their rank or station. If the petition, then, ought to be received, the question of printing followed the same rule. It was a matter of course, that the votes should be printed for the use of the members; and, as to publicity, the rule was well known, that a person who published any statement contained in a petition was liable to punishment, as in the case of libel.
Mr. Secretary Peelcontended, that the
1110
House ought to look with a great deal of hesitation at the complaint of any petitioner whose case had been already decided, after a long and impartial inquiry in a court of law; and with still greater scruple, when that person came forward and accused persons of such high honour and distinguished character as sir H. Torrens and sir H. Taylor, of what could only be called gross perjury. For he said, in precise terms, that no such general order ever existed, as that to which sir H. Torrens actually swore in a court of law to have been issued. Was it probable, that such a man as sir H. Torrens would perjure himself in the manner which the petitioner alleged? Or ought they, with any regard to justice, or to the character of the individual so charged, to permit such an accusation to be publicly dispersed by their authority It was, undoubtedly, the right of every subject to present what he considered his grievances to the consideration and compassion of that House; and on that ground he would not object to the petition being laid on the table. But he felt it due to the character of the general officers accused by the petitioner, that they should leave him to seek his remedy, if he could prove his assertions, in a court of law, and he would therefore oppose any motion for the petition being printed.
The petition was then brought up.
Mr. Humeentered into a detail of the occurrences mentioned in the petition, and contended, that there was one plain and obvious course for colonel Arthur to have pursued, namely, to produce the commission, if he really possessed it: that would have prevented all the evils which followed, and which were the more dangerous, and the more to have been avoided, when they knew that the colony was almost in a state of insurrection. All complaints were charges of one kind or other, and involved more or less the character of those who were the subject of them. He knew not, indeed, how justice could be done without them; but, as the right hon. gentleman seemed to have so great an objection to those passages which affected the conduct of sir H. Torrens, he would, although he wished to move that it be printed, in the hope that some member might feel it right to take measures for having it referred to a committee, now consent to withdraw it altogether.
The petition was accordingly withdrawn.

MR. BUCKINGHAM—LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN INDIA COMMITTEE.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the Select Committee appointed to examine into the matters alleged in this gentleman's petition be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he might, with great propriety, move that the order which the House had made on a former evening On this subject should now be rescinded; and the ground upon which he should be justified, in doing so was, that there had been no notice of the motion which the noble lord had carried. He had, at first, resolved to do so, but he had since abandoned his intention; and he would tell the House why: it was, because the case was one in which an individual complained of having suffered great hardship. If it had been of a different description he should certainly have acted upon his original resolution. The noble lord communicated to him, and to another gentleman on his side of the House, his intention of presenting a petition; but he had given no intimation whatever that he purposed to follow it up by a motion; and certainly he could not have imagined the noble lord intended to make such a motion as that which had been proposed. Knowing, as he did, the noble lord's usual courtesy in all matters which he brought before the House, he should not have believed it if he had been told that any such proceeding would have been adopted by him. He did not now rise to oppose the motion; but as the noble lord, in forming a committee of sixteen, had taken only five members from the ministerial side of the House, the other eleven being selected from the opposite benches, he should object to the addition of any more names to the committee.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was sure his noble friend had no intention of taking the House by surprise. He had not requested him to attend, nor, as he believed, many other gentlemen who were usually in the habit of acting with him.
Lord Miltonsaid, he supposed the reason of the right hon. gentleman's complaint was, that no Treasury notes had been issued on the occasion.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that so far from there having been any intention on the part of his noble friend to take the House by surprise, he had himself requested his noble friend to put off the motion. He bad no reason for doing so, but that he
1112
thought any other occasion would be just as favourable to its success as that on which it was made. He could not sufficiently express his surprise at the intention which the right hon. gentleman avowed. If he had carried it into execution, what, he asked, would be the inference of the country? The most ardent reformer that ever lived would not wish that such a picture should be held up to the country of the state of the representation—that because the benches on the right hon. gentleman's side of the House were not so well filled as usual, any motion which happened to be made at that time was afterwards to be rescinded. Would it be openly insisted, that if by an accident—a rare one, it must be confessed—they, on that side of the House, succeeded in carrying a question, it was afterwards to be decided over again, at an opportunity which ministers might think more favourable? They should remember, that the same thing might, if the example were once set, be practised on that side of the House. He did not see why this question differed from any other, or why it required any more notice than the corn question, which had been so lately proposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his right hon. friend had been misunderstood. Undoubtedly, the rules of the House were not made for the convenience of one side or the other; and he believed that, if the course now complained of were adopted on that side of the House, gentlemen opposite would complain of it bitterly, and with great justice. He must confess he was surprised that the noble lord should have made this motion without notice. He was himself on his way to the House on the evening on which it had been made, but hearing that there was nothing before the House but petitions, he was ashamed to say he turned back.
Mr. Calcraftprotested he had neither had, nor heard of, any such notice as that about which the right hon. gentleman had spoken; and yet he had voted on the former evening with his noble friend; and did not regret that he had done so. As to the objections that had been taken to the noble lord's mode of proceeding in. this case, the whole of the matter was, that the right hon. gentleman was very sore. He did not like to be beaten; and defeat was yet too new a visitation for him to be callous to it. For his own part, he could not agree with those who thought that a formal notice ought always to be

1113
given, preparatory to bringing forward a motion. Experience showed, that it was only by sudden movements that members on his side of the House could defeat their much more powerful antagonists. Whenever these formal notices were given, and they had what was technically called a "field-day" of discussion, they were sure to be overwhelmed. However in-convenient the course complained of might be, he could not consent to relinquish, upon all occasions, the exercise of that wholesome privilege, which every member had the power to exercise, of propounding motions without notice.
Mr. Broughamwas inclined to think that the motion of his noble friend, on a former evening, had been carried against ministers, not quite so much by surprise as some hon. members seemed to imagine. The debate on that occasion was undoubtedly not a very short one. There had been a great deal of discussion upon it. If he recollected rightly, an hon. and learned friend, from Doctors' Commons (Dr. Phillimore) addressed the House at considerable length, and no doubt in a manner very profitable to those whom he addressed; but the length of that address was certainly not the less profitable to the division which subsequently took place. For during his learned friend's exercitation, a great many members came down, who, not being scared like the Chancellor of the Exchequer at hearing that the debate was only about a petition, did not turn back, but took their places in time to vote with his majesty's ministers. And, by a singular coincidence it happened, that during precisely the same period, and while his learned friend was stating his view of the question, a great many gentlemen on his (Mr. B.'s) side of the House left it. The vote was not, therefore, altogether so mere a matter of accident as it had been described to be. The fact was, that a very general impression, in the case of Mr. Buckingham, had gone abroad—and a very strong one too— that, somehow or other, by the conduct of the East India Company, that gentle-man had been very hardly used.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he thought he had a right to complain that the noble lord had not given any notice that he intended to move for a select committee. He had certainly stated, that he would bring the petition under the consideration of the House, but he did not even hint that he would follow up that proceeding with a
1114
motion for a select committee. And he for one must say, that on hearing the speech which the noble lord delivered on the petition being presented, he had no idea that the noble lord meant to call for a select committee. He might have been imprudent in the speech he had made, but he must say, that in addressing the House on that occasion, he was not actuated by any consideration connected with the division which afterwards took place. It arose entirely from his decided opinion that the whole of this proceeding did not originate in any feeling of compassion for Mr. Buckingham, but from a desire to carry on indirectly, an attack upon the memory of the late Mr. Adam — an individual, who, in his conscientious opinion, he believed to be one of the most valuable servants the Company had had for a long time. Unfortunately for the Company, death had closed the career of that distinguished individual. He was not there to defend himself; and he thought it but fair to say thus much in justification of that gentleman's character.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that if the motion in question had been introduced for the purpose of levelling an attack against the lamented individual whose name had been mentioned, or if he thought that by possibility it could lead to such an attack, he would have been the last man to have given it his support.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he undoubtedly never thought that the noble lord or his learned friend would make themselves parties to such an attack, but he knew that many persons, in bringing forward this question, had mixed up the character of Mr. Adam with it, in a most unjustifiable manner.
Lord J. Russelldefended the course he had taken on a former evening. The gentlemen around him had no more notice of what he meant to do than the gentleman opposite had. And when he stated that he would introduce the petition, he did not give notice of what he would afterwards do, because he wished to leave it open to himself to pursue that course which might, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, appear to be necessary. He considered the course which he had adopted to be as regular as any other that could be pointed out. He conceived that he, or any other member, was competent to bring forward the motion, without giving notice

1115
to the House. He saw no reason why he should adopt a course of proceeding which would enable ministers to issue their summons to the individuals in that House who were the representatives of Downing-street, calling on them to give their vote on a question, the merits of which they had not heard discussed. He thought it was always better to have a question decided by those who had listened to the discussion (which was the case in this instance), than by those who had not. As to the subject itself, it had long been before the public: it had been agitated in various ways, and was, therefore, a question of which no man could be completely ignorant. The learned gentleman who had just sat down had asserted, that these attempts to procure redress were in reality brought forward to degrade the character of Mr. Adam. He, for one, must solemnly disclaim any such intention. Until he perfectly understood the nature of the case, he had felt unwilling, from his knowledge of the family of Mr. Adam, and from the character which that gentleman bore in India, to have any thing to do with it. But when he at length found, that Mr. Buckingham had been refused redress in every quarter to which he had applied, he thought that no consideration of the family connexion of any individual ought to prevent him from bringing forward a case, which appeared to him to be one of severe individual hardship. He considered that it was his privilege to bring forward the motion in question without notice. He was not obliged to give the Treasury an opportunity to send forth their notices, and to bring down their regular pack to vote on the occasion.
Mr. Humesaid, that Mr. Adam's character or conduct had nothing to do with this petition. Mr. Buckingham complained of the destruction of his property, which had taken place after Mr. Adam had left the government, and when he was absent for the benefit of his health. The sending Mr. Buckingham from India by Mr. Adam, and the subsequent destruction of his property under the government of lord Amherst, were two very distinct questions.
Mr. Astellsaid, that the honorable gentleman wished to persuade the House, that the case of Mr. Buckingham, as it had been brought before them, applied only to the destruction of his property subsequently to his leaving India;
1116
but he begged leave to say, that the great grievance of Mr. Buckingham, and that which formed the principal feature of his complaint, was his removal from India, which was set forth at large in his petition. That removal had been rendered necessary by his own conduct, and the conduct of the writers in his paper, who were continually vilifying government. The house ought not, therefore, to be led away by the partial statements of the hon. gentleman. As Mr. Adam's name had been mentioned, he would take that opportunity—as he would seize every opportunity that occurred—to do that individual justice. He would say of him, that a more able, zealous, or upright servant of the East India Company never lived. The loss of that excellent man could not be easily repaired; and he must declare, that the name of Mr. Adam had been most unjustly coupled with these proceedings.
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that Mr. Buckingham having appealed to the privy council, and that body having decided against his appeal, he thought it a most unusual course to bring the subject before parliament. In common fairness, a notice of the noble lord's intention to move for a select committee ought to have been given; because he believed many individuals would have voted against the motion, had they been aware that it was a matter between Mr. Buckingham and the East India Company on which the privy council had adjudicated.
The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of lord John Russell, Mr. Abercromby and sir C. Forbes were added to the committee. Mr. Wynn then moved that Mr. Stuart, colonel Baillie, Mr. VV. Peel, sir E. H. East, Mr. Ross, lord G. Somerset, Mr. Wellesley, and colonel Lushington, be added to the committee.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the parties now proposed were either in office, or connected with the East India Company; whereas, when the committee were appointed the other night, he believed the names were taken alternately from both sides of the House.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that there were on the committee which was appointed on Tuesday evening, five persons, who were either commissioners of the Board of Control, or East India directors,—individuals who were certain to vote against Mr. Buckingham's claim. Of the other members of the committee, a considerable

1117
portion of them were gentlemen who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and who were in favour of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had, however, introduced the names of a number of persons, who had either places under the Crown, or who were connected with the East India Company. This, he contended, was not fair. He was sure that the right hon. gentleman's ancestor, Mr. Speaker Williams, did he preside in the Chair, would be ashamed of a committee thus partially selected.
Mr. Peelwas of opinion, that Mr. Speaker Williams would rather be ashamed of the manner in which the committee was selected on Tuesday last, than of the addition which it was now proposed to make to it. A noble lord had stated, that the members of the committee had been taken alternately from both sides of the House. Now, out of sixteen names, ten had been taken from the opposite side of the House; and one of the remaining six had made a speech in favour of Mr. Buckingham. Two names of gentlemen who were favourable, he believed, to this claim, had since been added to the list; so that there was a balance of 13 against 5.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. gentleman should allow others to act on the principle which he and his friends had adopted in forming the committee, in the early part of the session, on the Scotch and Irish currency. On that occasion, a committee of twenty-one persons had been appointed, three only of whom could speak the sentiments of the people of Scotland with respect to the currency question; while the other members of the committee were all ready to destroy the present circulation of Scotland. There was the chancellor of the Exchequer decidedly in favour of an alteration. Mr. Peel also in favour of it.
Mr. Peel.—I never said any thing about it.
Mr. Hume.—I beg to state my recollection of the matter; having, on the very day, noted the circumstance, as proving this to be the most partial list that was ever drawn up.
Mr. Peel.—I did not open my lips on the subject.
Mr. Humeproceeded to contend, that the list of the committee appointed to consider Mr. Buckingham's petition was not a partial one. The list was put into the noble lord's hand partly written, and the success of his motion was as little
1118
expected by the noble lord as it was by him. Therefore, there could have been no premeditation. The proposition now made, by which the Board of Control and the Court of Directors would have an opportunity of deciding on the case of this individual, was absolutely ridiculous. It was completely depriving Mr. Buckingham of any chance of success.
Mr. Peelsaid, that undoubtedly he had a strong opinion on the subject of Scotch currency. He thought it was right to extend to Scotland the system which prevailed in this country. But, when the motion for a committee was made by his right hon. friend, he did not say a word on the subject; so, it was impossible that the hon. member could have taken any note on the subject. When the hon. member said there were but three members connected with Scotland appointed on that committee, he was at a loss to know on what principle it was that he formed his calculation. He, however, could say very little for the correctness of the hon. member's estimate. He found on that committee, besides those whom the hon. member had mentioned, the lord Advocate, lord F. Gower, who could not be said to have no interest in the question, and Mr. W. Gordon; and when the hon. member for Aberdeen proposed Mr. W. Gordon, he ought to recollect that the proposition was at once agreed to.
Mr. Trantsaid, in answer to the observation which had been made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), that he went into the committee without any bias on his mind. He was perfectly open to conviction. He scorned the imputation of going into a committee of inquiry with his mind made up to a particular decision.
Mr. Peelsaid, he had not insinuated that the hon. member had any undue bias on his mind. He had merely observed, that the hon. member had spoken and voted in favour of the motion.
Mr. Scarlettobserved, that if the object of this committee was fair inquiry, it certainly ought not to be filled up by those who had voted against such inquiry.
The names proposed by Mr. Wynn were then added to the committee.

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Humerose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal so much of the 6th of Geo. IV. cap. 107, as relates to the Exportation of Tools and Utensils." He contended, that the neces-

1119
sity of allowing the exportation of machinery had been fully substantiated by the evidence given before the committee on that subject. It was proved, that, if, the exportation were permitted, this country would find a market for machinery throughout a very large portion of the world. By adopting a contrary system, they compelled other states to create machinery for themselves, instead of having recourse to Great Britain. But, though the act, part of which he wished to have repealed, forbad the exportation of machinery of particular kinds, it permitted steam-engines, and other articles intimately connected with machinery, to be sent abroad. His object was, to give employment, as far as possible, to a numerous class of workmen—an object of great importance, when it was considered that one portion of our population was in a state approaching to starvation. The laws of the country prevented many persons from being employed in the formation of machines at the present moment, while the masters admitted that they could procure foreign orders to almost any amount, if they dared to take them. There was, he knew, a prejudice against sending out machinery; but it was dying away fast. A petition had been presented to the House on this subject, which was worthy of consideration. It was there stated, that in consequence of these laws, many individuals were obliged to depend on the poor-rates of the parish where they resided, or to seek for employment in other countries. At the present moment, he believed strong inducements were held out to English workmen to go abroad for the purpose of making machines. Now, he conceived it would be more wise to send the machines abroad, and to keep the workmen at home. He had some time since called on the President of the Board of Control to bring in a bill for that purpose. At that time, the right hon. gentleman was not aware of the situation to which the manufacturing classes were on the point of being reduced; for, if he had, he certainly would have made every exertion to have the law repealed. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Huskissonapprehended, that if leave were given to export every species of machinery, without discrimination, considerable mischief must ensue. In some cases, the exportation of machinery had been allowed; namely, in those cases
1120
where the framers of machinery did not conceive that their interests could be prejudiced by permitting exportation. There might be, and he feared there was, a number of ingenious artisans out of employ; but, in setting on foot a measure of this kind for their relief, the House should first know how far it was likely to affect the interests of those by whom they were ordinarily employed. He would not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill; but, before it proceeded further, it would be necessary that the fact of such a measure having been introduced should be known throughout the country, in order that they might be put in possession of the feelings of those who were most interested in its provisions. If, on that examination, it should appear that any of the great interests to which he had alluded were likely to be prejudiced, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the measure.
Mr. Birchdeprecated the introduction of any such measure at the present moment; because it must necessarily produce a most unpleasant feeling in the country. It would be much better to wait until the next session of parliament. As to the committee, to which the hon. mover had alluded, he must say, that the whole of the evidence given before it was decidedly ex-parte.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that whatever opinion might be entertained of the merits of this question, the present moment was the most unfavourable that could be selected for agitating it. The inquiry which this subject had undergone was the most defective that could be imagined. There had been no evidence on the subject from Lancashire, Glasgow, Birmingham, or from several other places in which this manufacture was carried on. The House had not heard the opinions of Bolton and Watt, and other eminent scientific men engaged in the trade; but from the information which had reached him on the subject, he was led to believe, that the opinions of those gentlemen were not favourable to an unlimited exportation of machinery. A petition was last year presented from Nottingham, full of information on this subject, and to that petition he should wish to refer the hon. member. He would admit, that in time copies of our machines would find their way into foreign countries; but all those hitherto sent there were imperfect, and to repair them workmen were required from this

1121
country. It would take a long time to have such machines equal to ours, unless there was allowed a general export of machinery; and if that were once to take place, he believed that a great portion of our industry and capital would follow.
Mr. Philipssaid, that if we had no means of employing the manufacturers of machines at home, it would be but common justice to allow them to manufacture for foreign countries. The export of machinery would have the effect not only of giving employment to many of the manufacturers, but would also enable many persons in the trade, who now had machines unemployed, to dispose of them to advantage to other countries. With respect to the question then before the House, he thought that on the principle of free trade, which was carried into so many other branches of our commerce, the export of machinery would not have an injurious tendency; but, under all the circumstances of the present time, it was his opinion that it would be better to refer the whole subject to a committee next session.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, it would be hopeless to attempt to carry any measure into effect on this subject in the present session.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought that a dispassionate consideration of the subject could not be expected at the present period. The hon. member had wished for the opinions of practical men on this subject; but he would ask, whether it would be proper to withdraw practical man from other and more important business at this period? If he were an advocate for the measure proposed by the hon. member, he thought he should best promote the object in view, by requesting him to postpone it.
Captain Maberlyexpressed a hope, that under the circumstances stated, the hon. member would not press his motion at present.
Mr. Humesaid, he had brought forward the motion in consequence of the petitions which had been presented to the House from the manufacturers of machines, complaining of being out of employment, and praying for relief. He did hope, that the principle which he advocated would at last be adopted; but as some hon. members thought the discussion of the subject would increase irritation in the minds of the manufacturers, and as he had no wish to add to that which already existed, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, he would not detain the House by a repetition of the arguments that bad been urged against the bill; but his opinions as to its injustice and impolicy were unchanged, and he therefore should take the sense of the House upon the second reading. He objected to it chiefly as a measure totally uncalled for by present circumstances. Though he thought that, generally speaking, it was a bad system to adopt, to legislate according to the feelings of people out of doors, which the hon. member for Aberdeen had just professed his willingness to do with regard to his machinery, as he considered it to be the duty of that House the rather to lead public opinion than to follow it; yet, as the doctrine of public feeling had been seconded by the president of the Board of Trade, and by the secretary for the Home Department, he should think himself justified in adopting the same line of argument. The first class which, to a man, were opposed to the measure, were the corn-dealers,—a class with which he did not generally sympathise. A great excitement had been created amongst that class, on account of the attacks which had been made on their property; but that body could meet and express their opinion and feelings simultaneously, as they all met at the corn market; but not so the corn growers, who were diffused throughout the country without any means of communication. If, therefore, he felt for the corn-dealers, he felt doubly for the corn-growers; as the present measure militated principally against their interest. There were 400,000 quarters of bonded corn to be introduced into the market, and 500,000 quarters to be imported; and all this at a time when it was known that there was abundance of corn in the granaries of the country. He denied that the corn had been kept back in the hopes that there would be a scarcity; though he would admit that it was reserved from the prospect of a better market. If ministers were to have the discretion they asked for, he did not wish them to state the price at which foreign corn was to be imported; he would rather that they did not: the measure was theirs, and it was right that they should take all the responsibility, if

1123
they took any. He, therefore, was glad that they had said nothing regarding either the price or the duty.
Sir W. W. Wynnsaid, that at the first introduction of this measure he was not disposed to view it in a favourable light; but, after the best consideration he had been enabled to give it, he thought the decision which the House had come to on the subject was highly creditable to it, and showed the feeling which it entertained for the distresses of the country. He believed that the fears of many hon. members were unfounded, as to the quantity of corn now in bond. It had been stated at 400,000 quarters; but he had reason to think that it did not exceed 269,000 quarters. Peeling that the measure was not likely to be productive of the injury which some hon. members anticipated, he would vote for the second reading; but he would reserve himself as to the details of the measure, until it should be in the committee.
Colonel Woodregretted that the hon. baronet had determined to take the sense of the House on this measure; for he thought the general question lost much in the opinion of the country by those frequent divisions. If, however, the hon. baronet pressed it to a division, he would vote for the second reading. He would not do so because he approved of the bill as a whole. And here he would observe, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs on a former evening, that he would not be one of his "compurgators" in bearing him out as to the necessity of this measure. He would, however, go to a committee, and he would there propose that 65 s. be the price at which foreign corn should be imported, with a duty. This he thought would satisfy the country, and be a most important alteration in the Corn-laws. He would reserve his arguments on this point until he went into the committee, when he hoped he should be able to persuade the committee of the advantage of such a regulation. Some hon. members had wished to have a free trade with a fixed duty, but he thought such a step extremely objectionable; for no fixed duty ought to be allowed to continue at a scarcity price. It would therefore be idle to suppose that a fixed duty would settle the question for ever. When a scarcity arose, they would have to come to parliament again to alter that fixed duty. But it was said, that if the ports were opened
1124
at a fixed duty, no scarcity could arise. He had read Mr. Jacob's report on the subject of foreign supply, and he found that the utmost we could now expect from the Baltic would be 500,000 quarters. The hon. member went on to contend, that a graduated scale would also be insufficient. The only safe mode would be the present law modified, by reducing the import duty as low as possible, consistently with the state of the country.
Mr. Bankessaid that the measure, as it now stood, was different from that which had been first introduced. The alterations made were certainly improvements; for had the first proposition been carried, to open the ports at a duty of 12 s., there was no doubt, whatever hon. gentlemen might say to the contrary, that that would continue to be the duty, whenever the question might be discussed hereafter. But, notwithstanding the alterations that had been made, he still thought the question extremely objectionable. His first objection was, that the agitation of the Corn-laws was not at all necessary at the present moment. The introduction of the measure at this time showed a great inconsistency on the part of ministers. What, he would ask, had occurred since the 18th of April, when the House came to a decision on the question? What did ministers expect from this measure? In what degree did they expect that the liberation of the bonded corn would lower the price of the markets? Was it 84 s, or 10 s. per quarter? If it were lowered 10 s or even 20 s. per quarter, would it afford any relief to the manufacturing districts? If it would not, how could ministers lend themselves to a delusion so perilous as the present was in every respect? Did they not see that those who were without money, and without employment could not buy corn, even at the most reduced rates? Would they tell him how those unfortunate individuals could be benefitted by the present measures? Let them answer this question plainly, and not talk to him about such solemn nonsense as "moral effect." Another great objection which he had to this plan was the time at which it was proposed, and the mode in which it was to operate as relief. "Probitas laudatur et alget" was an observation of some antiquity, but one which had been completely verified in the present instance. Whilst the people were quiet, no aid had been administered to their distresses; but, as soon as they began to be riotous, measures were devised

1125
for their immediate relief. On these grounds he retained all the objections which he had originally felt to this proposition. He gave credit to ministers for the alterations which they had made in it; but they were not such as to reconcile him to it, for he was convinced that whatever was founded in deception and delusion must end in frustration and disappointment. He should therefore conclude by moving as an amendment, "That this bill be read a second time this day month."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was a great satisfaction to him to know, that though many gentlemen had felt warmly in the discussions which had recently taken place on this measure, all of them had abstained from examining it with any undue degree of heat and violence. He trusted that they would still preserve the same moderation which had hitherto guided them, and that whatever exasperation might prevail elsewhere, none would be perceived within the walls of that House. He was anxious to make a few remarks on this question, because the greater part of what he had hitherto heard, referred not so much to the question itself, as to the course which government had pursued upon it, and the moment at which it had brought it forward. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had told the House, that he had four objections to it. The first of them was, that government had acted with inconsistency in proposing the measure at all. Now, that might be a good argument as against the government; but, if the measure were right, it was no argument against the measure. He asserted, however, that government had not acted inconsistently. It was true, that when his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was asked, early in the session, if it was the intention of his majesty's government to bring forward a general revision of the Corn-laws, his answer was in the negative. The reason was, that the last session of a parliament was a most unfit time for the consideration of a subject of so much importance. The little by-battles that had occurred on the presenting of the several petitions on the subject sufficiently showed the spirit in which the general discussion would have been carried on. But, although his majesty's government thought it inexpedient to enter on the revision of the whole system of the Corn-laws, it by no means followed that it was inconsistent on their part, when any necessity called upon them
1126

to do so, to propose a temporary suspension of the laws, such as that under consideration. It had been said, that it would have been better if ministers had allowed things to take their chance, and if, instead of a previous application to parliament, they had, in the event of unfavourable circumstances, resorted to what he was astonished to hear called the "royal prerogative." He confessed he thought that honourable gentlemen, who used that argument, spoke much too lightly of the act of suspending the laws of the country. But suppose ministers had determined on that course,—suppose, after the termination of the session corn had risen as it did in 1816, and ministers had exercised the power which had been alluded to, would not that have been as great a prejudice to the main question as the present proposition? Would it not have been desirable that parliament should be summoned in the midst of their holiday relaxation to discuss the question—and, be it observed, to discuss it only negatively, and that under the clear and undoubted indication, that the existing law had been proved insufficient to meet probable contingencies? The course which had been adopted appeared to him to be much more fair, manly, and constitutional. The hon. gentleman's second objection to the measure was, that it would do no good. His majesty's government never pretended to bring it forward as a panacea for distresses, which they admitted were no more occasioned by the Corn-laws, than by any road-bill that had passed the House. But, would any body say that when there was intense distress,—when there were congregated hundreds of human beings who were unable to obtain more than a mere pittance to support their debilitated frames,—and when there were many who were not able to obtain even that, that the price of corn would have no effect? The measure was proposed to meet a possible contingency—to prevent corn from rising to a price so high, that the prevention could not be deemed by any man to be unimportant. For himself he must say, that, if ever there was a case in which the excesses of men in distress were to be pitied, it was in the case to which the hon. member for Dorsetshire had alluded. They were excesses produced by excess of misery. Not a symptom of bad feeling had been evinced, until the mistaken notion entered their heads of destroying the power-looms, to which they fancied their dis-

1127
tress was attributable. Under these circumstances it would have been extreme and miserable cowardice on the part of his majesty's government, to have abstained from proposing a partial remedy for the evil, lest their motives should be misrepresented. The course which government had taken, in order to suppress the outrages which had occurred in the manufacturing districts, proved that they were not under the influence of fear; for, on the first appearance of them, they had poured into those districts a body of troops sufficient to protect all good and terrify all ill-disposed persons. He was sure, therefore, that nobody who rightly considered the matter would attribute the concessions which government were inclined to make to the suffering subjects of his majesty, as the result of any timid or unworthy policy. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had desired ministers not to talk to him about the solemn nonsense of moral effect. Who had used the phrase he did not know; but, if the effect -of the measure were to soften any exasperation of feeling which existed in the manufacturing districts—if it tended to prevent agitators from turning that exasperation into any political purpose—he should not be inclined to shrink from the term which had been used. On the contrary, he should be prepared to contend, that government would not be acting wrongly in consulting the feelings of those with whose interests it was charged. With reference to the reflections which had been made by the hon. member for Dorsetshire on the petitions which had been received from the manufacturing districts against the Corn-laws, they had; not reflected upon the landlords, and therefore there was no occasion for the hon. member, as one of that class, to reflect so strongly upon them. Why the hostility of the landlords should be so strongly directed against this measure, he could not well understand, for he believed no measure was better calculated to promote their interests. He contended, that in the report of 1821, and more especially in the report of 1822, on the agricultural distress, there were many resolutions calculated to pave the way for a permanent revision of the Corn-laws, and for placing them on a very different system from that on which they were placed at present. He said that, under such circumstances, the country gentlemen could not take a course better
1128
calculated to prejudice them on any future consideration of the Corn-laws, than that which they were taking at the present moment. He hoped that many gentlemen of that class would take the advice which had been tendered them by his hon. friend the member for Brecon-— advice which reflected the greatest honour upon him. His hon. friend was as deeply interested in the question as any member whom he then addressed — but his hon. friend had frankly declared, that if this bill were passed to a second reading, he would support it, and would move for a modification of it in the committee. He hoped that his example would be followed by other country gentlemen; and that those of them who had no pressure from without, owing to existing circumstances, to which he need not more particularly allude, would give to government the power of doing great good, without the possibility of doing by it the slightest harm.
Lord Cliftonhoped that this measure would be merely temporary, but felt himself bound, in the choice of evils, to vote with ministers. From every information he had been able to collect from the best informed persons, he believed there was no probability of any scarcity, much less of any famine taking place in the country before the next harvest. So far was he from thinking that there was any "solemn nonsense" in the moral effect which this measure was described as likely to produce, that it was on account of that very "moral effect" that he voted for it. No practical evil, he was convinced, would arise from it; and if it tended, in any degree, to satisfy the public mind, it was at any rate one advantage gained.
Mr. Benettdeclared the cause of the existing distress to be the recent tampering with the currency, and added his conviction, that it did not arise out of the Corn-laws. The relief which this measure professed to give to the manufacturers, would be inefficient, if it were not attended by a paper currency; besides, the letting loose the bonded corn, would be of no advantage to the destitute and unemployed manufacturers, unless it were given to them. The effect of the measure must be either to reduce the market price of corn or not. If it did reduce it, it would involve the agriculturists in distress without relieving the manufacturers, and thus it would ul-

1129
timately prove destructive to the manufacturing interests by annihilating the home market, which was infinitely more valuable to them than the foreign.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, he would certainly give his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Brecon, and allow the bill to be read a second time. Any objections to the detail could be much more conveniently urged in the committee.
Mr. Stanleygave notice, that in the committee on the bill, he would propose a clause that the local committees, upon producing certificates of their having bought the bonded corn let loose into the market for the purpose of distributing it among the distressed manufacturers, should be entitled to claim from the Treasury repayment of the duties paid upon it. In making this proposition, which would have the effect of localizing the relief afforded by government, he trusted he should have the assistance of the majority of the House.
Sir E. Knatchbullfelt compelled to vote against the second reading of the bill. He had heard with considerable satisfaction the proposition which had come from the last speaker, but could not guess how far it would meet the approbation of government.
Lord Miltonsaid, he was rejoiced to hear that the proposition of the hon. member had the approbation of the hon. baronet; but if the hon. baronet supposed the House could get through this question without some discussion on the Corn-laws, he would find himself greatly mistaken. The measures now proposed proclaimed to the world that the Corn-laws were laws which could not be permanent in this country. They were laws for fair weather, and whenever a storm arose, it became necessary to re-consider them. Honourable members must, therefore, if this measure passed, make up their minds to consider fully the whole question at an early period of the next session. He was not absurd enough to suppose that the Corn-laws were the sole cause of the existing distress in the manufacturing districts; but he had no hesitation in saying, that in one respect they had a great effect in producing it, and that was in the interruption which they gave to the commercial interests of our manufacturers with foreign countries. Honourable gentlemen might depend upon it, that the Corn-laws would be settled in one way or another before long.
1130
In his opinion they could only be settled in one way; and that was upon the principles of free trade. With respect to the measure more immediately before the House, he did not think that it would be of any effect; neither did he suppose that ministers thought it would be of any effect, except in preventing any aggravation of the existing distress. Ministers must, however, give him leave to say, that the time at which they had proposed this measure, had led, in certain quarters, to the opinion, that they had other views than those which they professed in proposing it. He was bound in justice to say, that he did not entertain such an opinion. —He gave ministers credit for the views which they professed to entertain—and hoped that they did not intend to let the present measures be merely insulated and temporary. He contended, that in whatever view this question was taken, it resolved itself at last into the amount of the burthens which the different classes of the community bore. Now, he maintained that the landed gentlemen formed that class of the community which had the least cause to complain of the burthens imposed upon them. [Hear, and cries of "No."] He said "Yes," for who were the chief cause, who the great instigators, who the main supporters, of the late war, which had imposed such a weight of taxation on the nation, but the country gentlemen? [Loud cries of "hear," from various quarters of the House, which was re-echoed back for some time, accompanied with cries of "No, no."] He! should not be put down by cries of "No,] no." He said it was "Ay, ay," and he: defied and challenged the other side to prove that he was incorrect. The country gentlemen were the instigators, and the promoters of the late war. He did not say that, in so doing, they had acted wrongly. He knew that members of his own family had supported it as strongly as any persons; but he repeated, that it was the country gentlemen who had pledged themselves to expend life and fortune in support of that war. Now, what was the case? When the fortune became really affected—he said nothing of the life, by the diminution of two shillings, or even one shilling in the rent of the acre, they declared that they had already paid for that war in the direct shape of taxes, and ought not to suffer any further diminution of their income. Now, he could shew that the Corn-

1131
laws, which were the creature of the war, added 10 s. a quarter to the price of every quarter of wheat grown in this country; and, as the consumption of the country amounted to 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 of quarters annually, they inflicted a taxation of 7,000,000 l. annually, on the people of England, for the benefit of the landowners and of the landowners alone. Let the landowners controvert that position if they could; and when they could, then, but not till then, they might say, that they had expended their fortunes in support of the war. The plain fact was, and it was impossible to disguise it, that they had raised their fortunes, instead of having spent them, in the war; and they now endeavoured, by the operation of the Corn-laws, to keep up the high rents which they had contrived to get from their tenants during that period. In spite of all the opposition he might meet with in making such a declaration, he would contend, that the effect of the Corn-laws was, to inflict a heavy taxation on the people of England. It was not, however, in that view of the question that he considered the Corn-laws most impolitic. Their great impolicy was in their acting as a non-intercourse bill with the country. He would gladly support any measure that was calculated to relax the fetters which this bill imposed upon the country, and, conceiving that the present measure would have that effect, he gladly gave it his support.
Mr. Secretary Peelregretted very much that the noble lord had made a speech, which, with whatever good humour it might have been delivered, was, in consequence of the introduction of some topics, calculated to interrupt the temperate and moderate course in which the debate had hitherto proceeded. An opportunity had been taken by the noble lord to involve the House in a very important discussion, which, however fit for consideration on another occasion, was certainly rather ill-timed on the present [cheers, with cries of "no, no!"]. When he heard it preferred as a charge.—
Lord Milton.—Not as a charge.
Mr. Peelcontinued.—Well then, when he heard the landed interest referred to as having supported the government at an arduous crisis, he felt that they had a right to look back to what they had done with conscious pride and satisfaction, considering the glory their country had acquired, and the services they had ren-
1132
dered it. Though he supported with the greatest cordiality a measure opposed by many of the country gentlemen, he yet felt it his duty to vindicate them from a charge to which he felt they were not obnoxious. The noble lord said, they were unwilling to submit to the reduction of their rents and their extravagant profits. It was not more than three or four years since agriculture had been suffering great distress, and during the whole interval the price of corn had not been such as to afford any exorbitant rent. In fact, the agricultural interest was now only just recovering from the depression of 1821. He was not disposed to go at length into the general merits of the measure before the House. These had been already ably discussed. With respect to the two suggestions of the hon. member for Brecon and the hon. member for Wootton Bassett, he was not able, at that moment, to form an opinion; and he requested the House to give them a deliberate consideration before they adopted them. The present measure appeared to him more fit than any other for the exigency, as it left every thing else indefinite, and purposely avoided any intimation of opinion with regard to the general question. Another suggestion made by an hon. gentleman was one that required very serious deliberation. He had no doubt it originated in the best intentions, but he saw many difficulties in the way of its being carried into execution. He would not then go into the question, whether public aid ought to be granted to the distressed manufacturers. But he would state his opinion, that if aid was to be granted, the direct course was to be preferred. Many objections arose as to the details of this proposition. The remitting of the duty on the corn taken out of bond, for the relief of the distressed, would give a preference to those places which were in the neighbourhood of the warehouses where the corn was lodged. Those who were distant from the ports would not have the same opportunity of benefitting themselves. Another objection was, that it would give a premium to the purchase of bonded corn. It was desirable, however, that the home grower should stand at least on the same footing with the holder of foreign corn. On any future occasion the same course would, in all probability be called for. He would therefore rather that direct aid should be given from the Treasury. He

1133
had never given a vote in that House with a more perfect conviction that the measure he supported was not only favourable to the general interests of the community, but he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he considered it to be expressly and mainly for the interest of the agriculturist, concurrently with all the other great interests of the country. There were three courses which the House might pursue. The first was, to enter on a general discussion of the whole question; but, on that point, the House had thrice decided, and he therefore did not think it necessary to consider that. The other two courses were either to leave things as they were, or to pass the bill; and he was prepared to contend, that to pass this bill was more conducive to the advantage of the landed interest than to leave things as they were. If this bill was passed, what would be its effect, in case corn did not rise? None, for then it could not come into operation. In case corn did rise, it would provide against an emergency calculated to cause much evil in the country. Taking the average price of corn during the last twenty-five years, it was evident that the chances were not so few, as to make it certain that such a contingency would not arise. Looking upon the situation of the country, it was evident that some preparation ought to be made; for a new parliament was of necessity to assemble soon. In case the emergency arose during the dissolution, how was the executive government to proceed, if a slate of distress like the present should arise? The distress of the present moment was owing to the glut of the market, caused by the over speculation of last year; and that a state of distress might again arise, none could attempt to deny. The probability of it was evident from the average prices of corn during the last twenty-five years; in sixteen years of which it had exceeded 70 s. per quarter, and in eight of which it had been more than 90 s. Was not this contingency to be guarded against? The remedy for the evil was not to be procured at the moment. It ought to be provided before-hand. As to the amount of corn imported during that period, he found, by consulting the returns, that during nine years of those twenty-five, the quantity imported had been more than 9,800,000 quarters, making an annual amount of about 1,100,000 quarters, which left for each
1134
quarter of the year about 290,000 quarters. Now, the amount of foreign corn and flour in the warehouses, did not exceed 290,000 quarters, and the whole contingency of importation of which so much apprehension had been excited, did not amount to more than 800,000; a quantity of trifling amount compared with the annual consumption. What measure, therefore, could be more advantageous to the agriculturists than the present, which would prevent the possibility of having recourse to dangerous and sudden importations during the summer, and would render it imperative on a new parliament to enter upon that important topic? He disclaimed for himself and his colleagues all motives arising from fear, alarm, or distress. They were actuated by far different feelings— by the necessity of preventing a scarcity of food in the country, as well as a hasty decision of the Corn-laws from being made. By giving to the government the power which it sought for at present, the country gentlemen would place those laws beyond the reach of any sudden alteration, and would enable themselves to enter next year, into a fair and full discussion of them.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that his main objection to this measure was, that it was not called for by circumstances of necessity. No case had been made out for it, and any inference to be drawn from the state of the markets was unfavourable, rather than favourable, to it. It was now said, that it was not so much the amount as the invariability of duty which was the desired object; but was the letting of the bonded corn into the market a means of securing steadiness of price? Quite the contrary. The price of corn had never been so unvarying as for the last seven years, but this influx of bonded corn would generate great fluctuations in the price. He asserted, from a knowledge of the circumstances, that 50 s. would not remunerate the grower of corn. He then entered into a defence of the country gentlemen against the charges which had been brought against them, and denied that any measures taken by them had contributed to bring the country into its present state. Injustice had been done that class of gentlemen, than whom there were not any men to whom the national character was more dear, or who felt more sensibly for the other interests of society. He concluded by declaring his determination to oppose this measure in every stage.
Mr. Whartonsaid, he belonged to what were called the country gentlemen in that House, and his object in rising was to defend them from the charges which had been brought against them. It had been said, that it was they who brought the country to its present state of distress by supporting the last war. For himself, he should say that he was not one of those who supported that war: on the contrary, he had always opposed it, and supported every measure which was calculated to hasten its conclusion. He was, therefore, innocent of all its consequences, and he hoped his country would acquit him of being accessary to its bad effects.
The House then divided: For the second reading 189; Against it 65; Majority 124.

List of the Minority.

Ashurst, W.

Hurst, R.

Bankes, H.

Ingilby, sir W.

Barnard, visc.

Inglis, sir H.

Bastard, E. P.

Johnson, col.

Becher, W. W.

Jones, J.

Belgrave, visc.

King, sir J. D.

Benett, J.

Kingsborough, visc.

Bond, J.

Luttrell, J. F.

Burrell, sir C.

Manners, lord C.

Burrell, Walter

Marjoribanks, sir J.

Calcraft, J.

Osborne, lord F.

Cavendish, lord G.

Pollen, sir J.

Cavendish, C.

Powell, W. E.

Chandos, marquis

Pryse, Pryse.

Chaplin, C.

Pym, F.

Corbett, P.

Rickford, W.

Corry, visc.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Cotterell, sir J. G.

Rowley, sir W.

Curteis, E. J.

Sebright, sir J.

Dawson, M.

Sefton, earl of

Dickinson, W.

Shaw, sir R.

Duncannon, visc.

Smith, Abel

Fane, J.

Smith, hon. R.

Fleming, J.

Sumner, G. H.

Grant, J. P.

Trant, W. H.

Gooch, T.

Tremayne, J. H.

Gordon, hon. R.

Vivian, sir R.

Guise, sir W.

Webb, E.

Gurney, R. H.

Westenra, hon. H.

Harvey, sir E.

Wharton, J.

Handley, H.

TELLERS.

Heron, sir R.

Knatchbull, sir E.

Honywood, W. P.

Lethbridge, sir T.

CORN LAWS.
The order of the day having been moved,
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that in rising to propose the motion of which he had a few days since given notice, he assured their lordships that he felt considerable pain and embarrassment—pain, because it was his lot to differ upon the subject from many noble lords whose public opinions were generally in unison with his own, and whom in private he viewed with every sentiment of regard and esteem—and embarrassment, because, when he viewed the circumstances of the country in connexion with this great question, and the magnitude of the interests it involved, he had deeply to lament that some one of their lordships, of greater ability and greater experience, had not undertaken the task. The only excuse that he had to urge for what in him might appear presumption, was the kind indulgence with which their lordships had heard him on former occasions, when this subject was discussed. All he had to hope then, was, that if this cause, which he felt to be one of justice, should fail in his hands, that failure might not be attributed to its want of merit, but to the insufficiency of the individual who brought it forward. Before he entered fully into
1054
the question, he felt it necessary to state the reasons that induced him to bring it forward in its present shape. To some it might appear that he was prejudging that question by the motion which he offered to the House; but his own opinion was, that it was always better, if possible, when agitating an important measure, to give the House an opportunity of displaying its sentiments upon that measure, before it was brought forward in the shape of a bill. He would say nothing on the first of the measures then before the other House; but by the second it was proposed to place a power in the hands of ministers, to introduce 500,000 quarters of foreign corn into this country. The other House might be disposed to consent to that measure without fixing any duty at which the corn should be imported, and without limiting the time of importation. Their lordships might, on the contrary, not be disposed to sanction such a measure without a fixed rate of duty, and without the time of importation were limited. But if that were the case, such a measure would necessarily fall to the ground, because their lordships could say nothing about the duty. To satisfy their lordships of the propriety of his motion, he would enter into a short history of the present state of the question as to the Corn-laws. In the year 1825, the president of the Board of Trade, to whom he believed he might allude, in that speech with which he opened, in the month of March, his propositions for a free trade—he would say, his experiments in trade—distinctly stated, that it was the intention of government to revise the Corn-laws, but that it would not be done that session. The mention of such an intention necessarily had an injurious effect on the landed interest. The consideration of this important subject was accordingly not brought on; but, towards the close of the session two measures were proposed, which were a violation of the existing law. One was for the admission of 433,000 quarters of corn into the home market from under bond, and the other was a bill for establishing a free trade in grain with our North American colonies. The former measure had passed without any opposition; the latter had been strongly opposed. On the debate on the latter question, the noble earl opposite (Liverpool) had stated, that the duty of 5s. a quarter was to be laid on Canadian wheat, but he also stated, that, in his

1055
opinion, there ought to be no duty at all, and that the trade in corn with the colonies ought to be put on the same footing as the corn trade in the mother country. This was the principle of free trade carried to its extreme. This brought them to the close of the last session, and their lordships separated, leaving the country in a state of great prosperity. When they met this year they found a great change had taken place, and that the country was involved in deep distress. It was, however, stated by the noble earl opposite, that it was not the intention of government to touch the Corn-laws this session; that this was not a favourable time for agitating and settling so important a question; and that, in the state of the country, it would injure the agricultural, and could confer no benefit on the landed, interest. In this he entirely coincided with the noble earl: but, within a short period, not above ten days, he believed, the distress in the manufacturing districts had assumed the character of destructive disturbance. On that occasion, a noble friend of his suggested, that a vote of public money would be the proper mode of relieving the distress; and on making that suggestion, the noble earl opposite objected thereto, and stated that there were two more constitutional modes of relief; one was charity—and charitable as that country was, this was very seldom appealed to on so extensive a scale—the Other was the poor-rates; and by them, as the sheet anchor, they must hold at last. He was quite within the mark, when he stated, that, of the whole poor-rates of the country, the landed interest already paid seven-tenths. The noble earl further stated, that two measures were in contemplation of the government. The one to let out the bonded corn; the other to permit an importation of foreign corn, in case of necessity. The ground of these measures was stated to be a possibility of scarcity, or an apprehension of scarcity; but he should prove that this apprehension was not well founded, by showing what quantity of foreign corn had been introduced into this country under the existing laws, since March 21st, 1825. In looking at the returns then on their lordships' table, he found that 433,000 quarters of wheat had been taken out of bond, and 95,000 had been imported from Canada, making a total of 528,000 quarters brought into the market. He might add to this the quantity of
1056
corn to be taken out of bond by the first of the proposed measures, to which he had no objection, amounting to 300,000 quarters, and the 500,000 quarters proposed to be introduced by the second measure, which would make, on the whole, 1,328,000 introduced into the country under the present Corn-law and these measures. As to scarcity, that was a visitation of Providence, which men must be prepared to meet; but he should, he thought, have good ground for adhering to the present law, if he showed, that under it more had been imported in these eleven months than had been imported, on an average, under the system which existed before 1815. The average quantity imported in years of peace and war, under that system, was 450,000 quarters a year; and he had just stated the quantity imported under the present system. To show what effect it had on prices, he would mention, that the average price in May 1815, was 56 s.; in 1816 it was 75 s.; but in November that year it rose to 96 s. In May 1817, it was 105 s.; while in May, 1825, it was 60 s.— shewing, by the prices of the present year, that there was no very good ground for an apprehension of scarcity. The average prices of this year, and of last, confirmed what he had before stated, as to the improbability of scarcity. The averages were these:—On the 14th November, 1825, two months after the harvest, the price, was 65 s. 4d.; while in Feb. 1826 no less than five months after the harvest, the price, instead of having risen, had actually fallen from 65 s. to 60 s. 5d. per quarter. If the supposition was, that the noble earl was correct, the House would of course expect, that in the present month of May, eight months after the harvest, the price must have increased considerably. Now, the fact was exactly the reverse; for in this month, the price had amounted to no more than 60 s. 4d.; so that the price now had fallen no less than 5s. from the sum at which it had stood only two months after the harvest. It seemed to be an opinion now prevailing, that the quantity of corn in hand had decreased. Now, he thought he could satisfy the House, that though the quantity in the warehouses might be less, yet that that fact was no proof of the actual diminution of the quantity of corn in the country. It was a gratifying circumstance to him, that the poor farmers were not forced in the market to sell their

1057
produce at any price they could obtain; but that they were able to retain it, and only to introduce it into the market gradually. Such was the fact, he believed, especially with the farmers in Norfolk and Lincolnshire; and this fact he thought sufficient to justify him in saying, that though the warehouses were not full, that circumstance did not afford any proof that the stock in the country would be insufficient to supply the home consumption.—His objection to the measure now proposed extended itself both to the time and the manner of the proposition. If he could believe for one moment, that the present state of the Corn-laws was the cause of the distress now existing in the country, he should have no objection to the measure; but before he agreed to it, he wished to know, and he must ask that question, whether the Corn-laws were, in fact, the cause of the distress, or if not, what was the cause? Now, he believed, that if he were to ask such a question, he should receive a great number of different answers. The manufacturers of the country would answer him with a declaration, that combination was the cause. The workmen, if they were asked, would answer, that machinery had created the distress. Old-fashioned people like himself would say, that it proceeded from those principles of free trade lately introduced by his majesty's ministers; while another class of men seemed to point out the Corn-laws as its origin. Now, he believed another cause might also be assigned; and that was the unprincipled speculations last year. He knew that very many merchants of the highest reputation were of this opinion, in which he also agreed; but he must say, and he knew that these very merchants supported him in the belief, that the Corn-laws had nothing whatever to do with the matter. As he believed this himself, he wished to convince the world of the truth of his belief; and he, therefore, now presented himself to their lordships, to ask for an inquiry into the matter, as he had no doubt he should be able to prove it, by the testimony of at least six of the most respectable merchants of the city. Within a week he would prove this to be the case, if their lordships would grant him even that time for the inquiry. But he would go further, and show, that not only the Corn-laws were not the cause of the present distress, but that the measures now introduced to remedy
1058
that distress, let it proceed from what it might, were calculated only to increase it. For that reason he was averse to forcing on the present measure, and for that reason he felt justified in pressing their lordships to accede to his motion.— Another reason for his now appearing to claim their lordships' attention was, an expression used by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, as applicable to the protecting price at which alone foreign corn was to be admitted to the British market. That noble earl, in the course of his speech on a former occasion, had used the words "famine price;" now, he must confess, he was astonished at the expression, and he could not but ask what had occurred in the course of four short years, since 1822, to make that which was then considered a fair protecting price be now considered and described as a "famine price." He certainly must do the noble earl the justice to say, that he had followed up his description of "famine price" with an avowal, that what in one year might be a moderate price, in another year might, from a change of circumstance, become a famine price. But if that was the case, in what a state were the agriculturists placed, since the 12 s. which was this year considered as a fair protecting duty, might next year be called a famine price. It was impossible that the landed interest could go on in that uncertain manner. It was impossible that any farms could be let, or any agreements entered into, if every year the price of corn, and consequently the rent of the land, was to depend on the circumstances of the manufacturers. If, however, there was a famine price as to corn, there would equally be a famine price as to all the other necessaries of life. The noble earl opposite, perhaps, did not minutely examine the bills of his hatter, his tailor, or his shoemaker; but if he did, he would find that a famine price as to corn could not exist, without a similar effect being observable in the price of his hat, his clothes, and his shoes. These were, as well as corn, the necessaries of life. Tea, which was perhaps almost a necessary among the lower orders, would experience the same increase in value; so would education, and so would labour of all kinds, as well as materials; for there was no saying to what point the increase of price ought not to go, since they were all liable to the same operation. If 65 were to be made the protecting price of corn, there

1059
must be a certain number of shillings added on account of the protecting duty; and he had already shown, that if the estimation of these was to be continually varying, there could be no stability in the concerns of the agricultural interest. He had mentioned education, and he should take that opportunity of saying, that he was a friend of education, because he believed it calculated to produce a benefit to the whole community; and, perhaps, one of the principal advantages of increasing the general mass of intellect was that of decreasing the quantity of prejudice. Now, he was of opinion, that the education diffused of late years among the people of this country had had that effect, and that if an inquiry should be granted, he should be able to prove what he had stated, and the spreading of that proof among the people could not fail to destroy the prejudice which now existed as to the Corn-laws. He wished it to be recollected, that the landed interest, so far from being protected from taxation, were, in fact, taxed beyond any other interest in the country. They could not have recourse to machinery to increase the quantity of their produce: and he had no doubt that the proof of the facts which he had already mentioned, and of some others to which this inquiry would naturally give rise, would do away any prejudice that might exist on the subject. He should now allude to Ireland—a country to which he looked as one of the great resources against that scarcity which the noble earl seemed to apprehend. They seemed not to be aware of the progress which had been made in that country among the agriculturists. He should take the liberty, on this subject, to quote some calculations from a book which was in the possession of most of their lordships— he meant Mr. Tooke's work—from which it appeared, that within the first three years of the importation of wheat from Ireland, dating from the year 1806, the quantity imported had amounted to 63,000 quarters of wheat. The difference between those years and the last three years, up to 1822, was most remarkable. In the three years, ending 1822, the quantity imported was 484,000 quarters—a quantity amounting to as much as the quantity of foreign corn that had been formerly imported. There were documents which gave an account of the quantity of corn and meal that had been imported into this country from Ireland. In the year 1815,
1060
the quantity (which he should prefer in his statement to the value, as that was always fluctuating), amounted to 1,600,000 barrels of wheat and flour. In the year 1825, only ten years afterwards, that quantity had increased to 3,700,000 barrels. That quantity was the more remarkable, as the trade to the colonies was almost done away with, since they had been permitted to receive American flour. He thought the proof of this in the Committee of Inquiry would have the effect of checking much of the spirit of disaffection now existing. His majesty's ministers had asked their lordships for their confidence, and had required them to consent to the measures now proposed, almost without examination. He was as ready as any one to place confidence in his majesty's ministers, and if there was any man in whom he should be more ready to place confidence than another, it was the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government. But when he differed from that noble earl in principle, when they came to a question on a measure which one considered as politic, and which the other deemed dangerous, it was no proof of want of confidence, if he refused that noble earl his vote on the measure. In consequence of that measure having been produced, a cloud had overhung the corn market, where every thing depended on the feeling between the buyer and the seller. If the corn buyer met the farmer with a confidence that what he bought he should be immediately able to sell, he would give a high price; but if the corn-factor saw he was likely to be met in the market by an importation of foreign corn, he would not give so high a price, and the farmer immediately became a sufferer, and would never be able to sell but at a minimum price. The same effect would be produced in the markets for other articles, if a similar course should be pursued. If the noble earl opposite had now on his hands 200,000 pairs of shoes imported from France, and proposed immediately to introduce them to the London market, he would have all the shoemakers in London in a state of insurrection. True it was, they might be told, as the landed proprietors were now told, that the quantity imported would form but an inconsiderable portion of the whole amount used in the course of the year; but such a statement would not satisfy them, for they would answer, that if the effect produced

1061
on them was bad, by lessening the demand for their labour, it made very little difference what was the comparative quantity introduced.—So much with respect to the measure itself. Now, with regard to the time at which it was introduced. He objected to its introduction before the 1st of June, previously to which time some more satisfactory information might be obtained, at least if his present motion should be granted; which would also give their lordships the opportunity of considering whether the measure now proposed could not be, in some degree, modelled, so as to avoid the disadvantages to which, in its present form, it was liable. He begged pardon of the House for having detained them so long, but he should now conclude by expressing his earnest hopes that they would accede to his motion—that they would not pass this measure, without further considering the interests of the landed proprietors, not as a class by themselves, but as a class with the interests of which every other class was connected. He required nothing but a fair and open consideration of the question, and he asked for this inquiry in the confident belief, that its result must be to make the landed interest triumphant. He had no other motive in making the present motion but the good of a class of the community which carried all others along with it, and with which they must all be prosperous or distressed. The noble earl concluded by moving a resolution to the following effect:—"That this House, though feeling the most anxious desire to contribute all in their power to the relief of the suffering classes of the community, is, nevertheless of opinion, that it is not expedient to consent to any measure for the alteration or suspension of the existing system of the Corn-laws with regard to the admission of foreign corn into the British markets for home consumption, without first instituting an inquiry into the relative effects of such proposed alteration or suspension, both on the grower and consumer of British corn."
Earl Bathurstsaid, that it had been the opinion of his majesty's ministers, an opinion which they had expressed in that House, and in which they were justified by circumstances, and supported by the opinions of others, that the present was not the fit time to discuss the operation of the Corn-laws. The noble earl who had just resumed his scat seemed to dif-
1062
fer from that opinion, and offered now to state the question in so clear a manner, and to bring forward such evidence on the subject, as would silence all doubts upon it. Now, with respect to that evidence, he begged to observe, that the opinions of a few manufacturers or merchants, however highly respectable, would not be sufficient to create a unanimous opinion on this subject. The noble earl had moved a resolution, after having called on their lordships to make a declaration of their sentiments on this matter; and that, too, even before the evidence which he proposed to adduce could be heard. Now, his objection to the resolution proposed was, that it was not a declaration of their lordships' sentiments. He opposed it on account of its extreme ambiguity. It was a resolution on which no two individuals would be agreed as to its precise meaning. Those who thought that there should be an alteration of the Corn-laws, but that it should be preceded by inquiry; those who thought there should be an alteration without any inquiry; those who thought there should be no alteration, nor any inquiry, this year, but that both inquiry and alteration should be postponed to next year; and those who thought there should be no alteration at all— might, by putting their own construction on the resolution, agree in their vote with the noble earl, by which he might get a majority. The noble earl called on the House to pass a resolution not to consent to any measure for the alteration or suspension of the existing system of Corn-laws. Now, what was the existing system? In the year 1815, there was an absolute prohibition of the importation of foreign corn, until the price of corn in the English markets should amount to 80 s., when corn was to be admitted free of duty. In 1822, great inconvenience having been felt from that system, it was altered; and it was then determined, that the market price at which corn should be admitted for home consumption should be fixed at 70 s., but subject to a duty of 17 s. for the first three months, and 12 s. for any time afterwards, until the price should amount to 80 s., when it was proposed the duty should be reduced, but still a graduated rate of duty be continued; but then, in addition to that, this law was not to operate until the market price amounted to 80 s. The effect of this alteration was, to suspend the permanent law until the price rose as high as 80 s. If, therefore, he was asked, what

1063
was now the system of the Corn-laws? he should answer, that foreign corn might be admitted at a duty when the price had risen to 70 s. This, however, was not all the ambiguity belonging to the resolution now proposed; for it pledged their lordships not to consent to the admission of any foreign grain for the home consumption. Now that extended to all the corn in bond, which was strictly within the words of the noble earl's resolution. The noble earl, however, had no intention that it should so apply; for he was willing to allow the grain now in bond to be brought into the market, subject to the limitation which had been already proposed; and that grain he was ready to admit without any inquiry. Yet, by so doing, he would not consent to give the manufacturers the impression that the Corn-laws were the cause of the distress. But then, though he was ready to admit the existence of an exigency so far, he would refuse to admit, in terms, the necessity of any infraction of the Corn-laws, though, by allowing the bonded corn to be brought into the market, he did, in fact, agree to an infraction of the law. Yet, though he would do so much, the noble earl had not resolved to proceed a step further, and to admit foreign corn into the country, even under any possible exigency to which it might be reduced. He would ask, whether the noble earl and his supporters had considered what would be the state of the country in the event of a great rise in the price of corn? The noble earl had said, that thought the warehouses were not full, the farm-yards were. This might be the fact; but it was also true, that last year the harvest was early and the crops good, and the promise of the crops, too, in the early part of the year was fair, and not like the present time, when the crops were much behind [cries of No, no !]. He was glad to hear he was mistaken; but, supposing the promise of the crops now to be fair, even then it did not follow, that the harvest might be got in as well as last year; and if that was not the case, the price of corn might rise, within six weeks, to such an extent, that any one who thought of the state of the labouring classes must be convinced they could not exist. What was the remedy for such a contingency? Was parliament to be continued, or rather, would parliament determine to sit up to the 14th of August, to contrive a remedy when the evil had arisen? Or would they say, "Let the
1064
evil go on, and let the people suffer, without any assistance being afforded them?" He was sure they would not say any such thing. If, then, the measure now proposed by government was not carried, what was to be done? Was parliament to be adjourned, and then re-summoned, without any thing being done for the people in the interval? And if they were re-summoned, was there any one who would say, that such a moment was the most propitious that could be chosen for the discussion of the principle of the Corn-laws? He was convinced there was no one who entertained such a notion; and yet, if parliament should be summoned under such circumstances, they must go into the discussion. There was no one, however opposed to the landed interest, who could fix on a plan that could be more injurious to their interests, nor on a moment when such a discussion could come on so much to their disadvantage. Some persons were of opinion, that the power of the Crown should be exerted in cases of necessity; that corn should be allowed to be imported; and that ministers should then come down to parliament for indemnity. Now, his objection to that course was, that it was no gracious part of the prerogative of the Crown to dispense with the laws; and when it had been exercised, the consequences to ministers had not been such as to induce them to wish to renew the experiment. This prerogative had been exerted in the time of lord Chatham. There was then an appearance of scarcity, and the Crown had directed the ports to be closed against the exportation of corn, and ministers afterwards came to parliament for indemnity. What was the consequence? They were asked, why they had not foreseen the emergency, and obtained from parliament their opinion on the subject. What was the inference from this inquiry? Why, that if ministers had foreseen the emergency, they had acted culpably in allowing parliament to separate, without coming to a decision on the subject. If the present ministers should have the same question put to them when they asked for indemnity, they must answer, that they had foreseen the emergency, and must acknowledge their culpability. But the infraction of the law, by the exertion of the royal prerogative in this case, would be greater than in the former instance. The Crown had at that time only forbidden the exportation of corn, which was then allowed to be ex-

1065
ported; whereas, now, they would be allowing the importation of corn, which was, at present, except under certain circumstances, forbidden. But that was not all. The infraction was still greater; for, as they could not admit the corn duty free, they must lay a tax upon it—a tax imposed without the consent of parliament —a tax upon the first necessary of life— and a tax, too, at a time when it was most necessary the subject of the tax should be admitted at as low a price as possible. If ministers did all this, and then came down to parliament and asked for a bill of indemnity, in what manner would parliament receive them? He should not venture to answer the question. The difficulty would be avoided if they would agree to the measure which his noble friend had proposed. He asked for power to be intrusted to ministers—discretionary power. It was said that this power ought to be limited, as their lordships might think necessary. What those limits should be, it was for them to consider; but if they entered on the discussion of the limitation of the amount of duty, they would, in some measure, be giving the opinion of parliament, as to what ought to be the importing price. All these difficulties presented themselves, now that parliament was in actual existence; and yet it was said, that ministers might take on themselves the responsibility of determining all those matters which now caused such serious discussion in parliament, and might afterwards come down to the House and ask for indemnity, as if they were secure of obtaining it, on a subject which that parliament treated as one of the utmost difficulty and delicacy. It appeared, the noble lord had no objection to setting free the bonded corn, but objected to the discretionary power proposed to be vested in the ministers of the Crown, for the introduction, if that should appear necessary, of a certain quantity of foreign corn: but, the real object seemed to be, to get rid of the whole proposition made by his majesty's ministers for the relief of the country. The resolution was very ambiguous, and not calculated, if carried into effect, to produce any benefit to the country. He certainly felt strongly opposed to its adoption, and would, therefore, move, "That the House do now adjourn."
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he had listened with much attention to the arguments of the noble lord who had last
1066
addressed the House, and he had hoped that from those arguments some justification might have been derived for the course upon which his majesty's ministers had thought it expedient to enter, and it was with regret that he felt himself bound to say, that no sufficient case had been made out to justify the legislature in vesting in those ministers that discretionary power which it was their object to acquire. There was no man in the House, or out of doors, more willing than he was to place confidence in the present ministers of the Crown; but, he must openly declare, that even were he disposed to admit the principle of their measures, he could not, under the present circumstances, be induced to lend his vote to the support of bills, which were objectionable, both as to the time and the manner of their introduction. It was, he assured the House, with considerable reluctance that he would oppose those with whom he had hitherto acted, in favour of the motion of his noble friend. To one of the measures, that for bringing the bonded corn into the market, he might perhaps have given his support, were it not that such a vote might seem to imply an admission that the Corn-laws ought altogether to be modified, and that the present distresses were in any respect to be attributed to the system upon which those laws were founded. It was with the deepest regret that he saw the noble earl, in whom he had hitherto, and should still, place confidence, lending himself to the unfounded calumny that had been sent abroad, that the Corn-laws were an advantage to the landed interest, at the expense of the manufacturers. He would support the resolution of his noble friend, for he thought that its adoption would afford a fair opportunity for disabusing the public mind of that gross and mischievous error, by permitting the landed proprietors and the agriculturists, to defend themselves from that unfounded imputation. And, further, it would give an opportunity of showing, what he was sure could very easily be shown, that the existing distresses were much more owing to the new principles of free trade, on which it was deemed proper to proceed, than to any operation of the Corn-laws. He thought, likewise, that the House was entitled to some explanation from the noble lord at the head of his majesty's government, which should go to account for the sudden change that had taken place in his sentiments, in the short space

1067
of ten days. Previous to this change, it was the opinion of that noble lord, that the question of the Corn-laws was one which should, on no account, be meddled with: it was one which, during the present session, should remain completely untouched. Now, it had not appeared, that, when the views of government were stated as to the two bills at present under the consideration of the other branch of the legislature, the noble lord had in the slightest degree alluded to the reasons by which the mighty change in his opinion had been effected. He and his noble friend were willing generally, to repose confidence in his majesty's ministers, but he for himself must frankly declare, that, on the present occasion at least, they must be allowed the privilege of differing from them. It was his full and deliberate conviction, that the quantity of corn now in bond would be found fully sufficient to meet any temporary rise of prices. Whatever were the merits or the demerits of the Corn-laws, he must repeat the opinion heretofore expressed by his majesty's government, that this was not the proper time for agitating the question. It was a question, too, which had best be discussed in a committee: but this, at least, must be admitted with respect to the system, that it was one which afforded a remunerating price to the grower, without creating an unreasonable demand upon the consumer. The session, he thought, was not too far advanced for inquiry, and he trusted that the noble earl would pause before he plunged the country deeper into the mire of free trade; which, he contended, was the real source of that degradation of trade out of which the present distresses arose. It was a question which ought to be set at rest; and he was sure the only mode of accomplishing that, would be by instituting the inquiry which it was the object of his noble friend's resolution to set on foot.
The Earl of Limericksaid, he felt great difficulty in giving the vote which a sense of duty would compel him to deliver. He had hitherto been a zealous supporter of the administration. Through good report, and through bad report, he had adhered to them; but what he owed to this country, and to the country from which he came, bound him to resist a measure fraught with injury to both, and especially to the latter. It had been said, that there was not time for inquiry. He would ask whose fault was that? It was now but
1068
the beginning of May, and he hesitated not to say, that it was the imperious duty of their lordships to remain at their posts, and ascertain whether the cause stated was or was not that to which the present distresses could be attributed, or whether there was any chance of famine prices. The noble lord had been pleased to quarrel with the motion, on the ground of ambiguity. For his part, he protested that never in his life did he read any thing more direct and obvious. He did not object to the introduction of the bonded corn, but he was decidedly averse from vesting in the hands of ministers the great discretionary power which they demanded at the hands of the legislature. This measure, like most others of the same character, could only be justified on the plea of necessity; and he protested that he thought that the case of necessity had been by no means established. The price for the last four months was 58 s. 6d. and had since been rapidly falling. Was it, then, to be said, that with the power of bringing into the market 300,000 quarters of wheat, there existed the slightest danger of corn rising to a famine price? No; the fact was, the warehouses of the manufacturers were full. They thought that the introduction of foreign corn would create a vent for those manufactures, and so relieve the existing distress; but he could assure them that, no sooner would those warehouses be emptied, than they would be filled again by fresh supplies; and then the legislature would be called upon once more to enact the same scene. He would call upon his majesty's ministers to look upon those by whom they were supported, and those by whom they were opposed. Their household troops, as he might call them, in which number he included himself, were voting against them, and his majesty's ministers were found leaguing themselves with his majesty's Opposition. His lordship then proceeded to notice the Report of Mr. Jacob, saying, that in framing it, he was governed by such instructions as indicated the sort of opinions he was expected to give. It was quite impossible, that a Report such as that professed to be, could be formed on so short a visit as six months; more especially as Mr. Jacob omitted some most important corn countries south of Russia and Sicily. The noble lord concluded by declaring, that he thought the projected measures would prove fearfully ruinous to Ireland.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, he considered that the propositions of ministers, respecting the introduction of foreign corn, if carried into effect, would not be prejudicial to the interests of the agriculturists, and would be beneficial to the community. Having said this, he was not prepared to deny, that he had some apprehensions that the bringing forward the question of the Corn-laws at the close of the session would be attended with great inconvenience. He was perfectly satisfied that his majesty's ministers had taken that course which they believed best calculated to obtain the end they had in view; namely, the good of the community. He was sorry that the proposition had been submitted to the House, as any question connected with the Corn-laws, short of a full discussion—which ought not, in his opinion, as he had before said, to be now entered upon—was likely to produce more harm than good. The principle of the two measures proposed by government, he really considered to be the same, and could not conceive how any distinction could be drawn between them. There had gone forth an opinion abroad, which he wished to correct, that the sufferings of the people arose in consequence of a boon given to the agriculturists. Now, he begged to ask what boon they had received? And this boon, it was conceived, ought to be given up; but there was none existing. He did not enter into the subject invidiously. He would contend, that the interest of the agriculturist and the manufacturer was the same, and he should belie his sentiments were he not to state it. In considering this question, it was necessary to examine closely into the real circumstances and condition of the different classes of the community; and in doing so, whatever might be the apparent prosperity, he could not help feeling, that, although large quantities of manufactures were going out of the country, yet the rates at which those commodities were manufactured were quite inadequate to the maintenance of a great portion of those who looked to that source for the means of their subsistence. If any measure could be devised for the relief of the manufacturing community, which would not be at the same time productive of injury to the first and most important interest of the country; namely, the agricultural interests, it would be the duty of parliament to embrace it with
1070
eagerness. When he spoke of the landed interest as the first interest of the country, he had in his recollection the injury which had accrued to the other branches of industry at the time of the general depression of agricultural affairs in the years 1816 and 1817. Under all the circumstances, he thought he should consult the dictates of duty and of prudence rather by adopting a proposition which might be the means of doing a vast deal of good, and which if unsuccessful for the intended purposes, was not supposed even by its opponents to be likely to lead to any injurious results, than by rejecting the means of effecting a possible good. He would therefore vote in favour of the measures now proposed by the noble earl.
The Earl of Roseberrysaid, that in the outset of the observations he intended to make, he was anxious to state that he was not, by any means, enamoured of the Corn-laws, but still adhered to the opinion he had expressed on presenting a petition in the last session; namely, that they ought to be revised, and that that revision could have been most advantageously made in the course of that year. He also agreed, that there were circumstances connected with the present session, which rendered it advisable not to enter into the discussion. He therefore had coincided, and still coincided, in the sentiments avowed by ministers in both Houses, although within a few days they had abandoned the very principle they were the first to establish. He did not wish to disparage the opinions of those who considered the existing Corn-laws a faultless system; but, that he might not be deemed a bigotted admirer of it, it was necessary for him to make a few remarks. Of the two propositions of government, he had listened to one, at least with feelings of astonishment and dismay; he alluded particularly to that which gave a discretionary power to admit foreign corn after the prorogation of parliament. He had felt astonishment, not only because the change recommended was not slight and trivial, but because it was in direct opposition to the declarations of the advisers of the Crown, that they would never propose an alteration of the Corn-laws to parliament without an antecedent inquiry. — [Lord Liverpool, across the table, intimated his dissent]. He begged to apologise, if he was mistaken; but he had certainly so understood the noble earl.

1071
The dismay he had felt arose from a persuasion that the measure could afford no substantial relief to the sufferings of the manufacturing classes, while it had a direct tendency to introduce doubt and alarm, if not embarrassment, among the agriculturists—now the only sound and prosperous class in the community. By this course, not only would the distresses of the artisans not be relieved, but increased by depriving them of the best consumers of their manufactures. If the project of ministers had been limited to letting into the home market the corn now in bond, he, for one, should have entirely approved of it, and when the bill for that purpose made its appearance, he should give it his support; not because he believed that it would, in fact, at all materially alleviate the distresses of the manufacturers, but because it would show a degree of sympathy for them, and put a stop to the growth of prejudice. Here he wished to reply to the remark of a noble lord, that the two measures were bottomed upon the same principle. To those who thought that the introduction of foreign grain would afford alleviation, it might seem that the principle of each was the same; but viewing, as he did, the first proposition as a mere indication of parliaentary sympathy, it seemed to him that they rested upon very different grounds. As to the discretionary power required by ministers to pour foreign grain into the country whenever they thought the public exigency demanded it, he must say that it was a measure pregnant with alarming mischief. After what had already passed, he feared that the mischief from asking the power would be almost as great as the mischief from granting it. He had paid much attention to the speech of the only member of government who had yet favoured the House; but nevertheless, he had yet to learn the peculiar reasons which called for these measures now, although not wanted on former occasions. If the prices of wheat were to be considered the test, ministers were more entitled to ask for this power in the last year than in the present; inasmuch as wheat was 7s. per quarter dearer than now. He believed that it was the first instance in which a government had asked (he hoped he should not have to say obtained) such a power, without the allegation of any thing like a ground. Instead of soothing, it would irritate and excite alarm that
1072
would otherwise never be felt. Was it not likely to produce the most serious terror, when the ministers were the first to raise the expectation of what the noble earl opposite had repeatedly called a famine price? It was, therefore, material for the House to reflect, whether it would act prudently in giving its sanction to such a fearful motion. It was called upon without inquiry, without a knowledge of the information ministers possessed, without a single document of importance upon the table, to invest ministers with what they themselves confessed to be a novel, extraordinary, and most delicate power. The noble earl at the head of the Treasury had stated, and repeated only a few days ago, that the present Corn-laws had nothing to do with the melancholy condition of the manufacturing districts. Taking prices as some indication whether the Corn-laws were connected with the distresses, and knowing that prices would not warrant this strange concession, the House, he thought, must arrive at the conviction, that ministers required it with a view, in some way or other, yet unexplained, to alleviate prevailing distresses. If so, they seemed to be in this dilemma; either their declarations, that the distresses were not occasioned by the Corn-laws, were false and groundless, or if they were occasioned by them, their measures would be fruitless and ineffectual. That the Corn-laws, had no influence of the kind was quite evident, because if, by the introduction of foreign grain, the price were lowered to an extent ruinous to the agricultural interests, the manufacturers could not be relieved by it. They were not suffering from the dearness of bread, but want of employment. If wheat were lowered to 38 s. per quarter, did any man suppose that the suffering artisans would be benefitted? The sister kingdom had afforded a parallel instance, within the last two or three years. The lower orders in Ireland had been reduced to the last stage of distress, until relieved by the bountiful and simultaneous contributions of Great Britain; and had not the House been told, that the greatest aggravation of their misery was, that they were starving in the midst of plenty. The distresses of the manufacturing classes at this moment arose, in a great degree, if not entirely, from the same causes. They were starving, not because there was no food to be bought, but because they had no means of buying it. Of course he felt the utmost desire to relieve; and, if he were per-

1073
suaded that either scheme would be effectual for that purpose, he would support it. The noble earl at the head of the colonial department had not fairly described the motion of the noble earl. It had no ambiguity, but in plain and intelligible terms called upon parliament, if ministers were determined to force this measure upon them, to engage in a previous inquiry as to its necessity. He objected to this proceeding also on another ground; namely, that it tended to lower the landowners and landholders in the estimation of the people at large. For moral and political reasons, independent of their wealth, if not the most important, they formed one of the most important bodies in the community. He did not charge ministers with producing this effect intentionally; but certainly their measures tended to perpetuate the notion, that the proprietors of the soil were disposed to consult only their own advantage. He should be sorry to see such a notion encouraged by the assertion of any body; but much more upon the authority of ministers. He could not conclude without repeating, that he was no favourer of the Corn-laws. He was anxious that they should be revised—desirous that they should be altered. He was not, indeed, prepared to say what the alteration should be, because he had not yet duly inquired; but he would go a step further and avow, that he thought that alteration inevitable. He was anxious, therefore, that even those who thought the present Corn-laws the best that could be devised, should make up their minds to the change, and instead of endeavouring to avert it, to consider the means of placing the alteration, whatever it might be, upon the most safe, satisfactory, and permanent footing.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, he was disposed, upon all occasions, to give real and effectual protection to the agricultural interests. He would almost view it with especial favour; for, notwithstanding the sneers and jests which were cast upon it, both in and out of parliament, he would assert that upon it was founded the constitutional government of this country. He had yet to learn why it was now to be viewed with less partiality; and why the valuable and industrious yeomanry and peasantry of England were to be disregarded? Hence he would not assist in the progress of any measure calculated to injure them, and agreed with his noble relative on the cross-bench, that no injury
1074
could fairly be apprehended from the measures under discussion. The agitation of the question in any shape was, perhaps, to be lamented; but when he heard his noble friend at the head of the government taunted with inconsistency, he must say, he did not think that the propositions before the House embraced any consideration of the footing on which the Corn-laws were ultimately and permanently to remain. It was singular that the noble lords who brought the charge of inconsistency should themselves recommend an inquiry into the whole system, as the alternative, before the House adopted the present, or any similar measure. The more so, because only in the last year a bill, with the like object in view, had been agreed to without opposition. The noble lord who talked of inconsistency were themselves ready to agree to the introduction of bonded grain; but resisted the concession of the discretionary power: they concurred in the absolute infraction of a positive law, but refused to grant a contingent power. For his part, he was ready to allow it not only to the present, but to any ministers: and he was not sure that it would not be a wise and salutary provision to invest every administration with such conditional authority. Passion and prejudice must prevail on questions of this kind; and where could the power be lodged more safely, than in the hands of those who, from their stations, were bound to view with equal eyes all classes of the state? Their ultimate interests, no doubt, were the same. A steady demand and a regular price were for the real benefit of both buyer and seller; but, in the first instance, this principle was always forgotten, and they were constantly at variance. He certainly did not anticipate any very substantial relief to the manufacturers from these propositions. The noble earl at the head of the government did not himself anticipate it; but it was scarcely less than absurd for the noble earl who spoke last to contend, that it was the same thing to the artisan whether wheat were at 60 s. or 38 s. per quarter. The cheapness of bread must at all times be important to the labouring classes. Besides, the noble earl seemed to forget the extended chain between the highest and the lowest members of the community, and that what benefitted the one must also, in its degree, be advantageous to the other. It was the duty of ministers to inform themselves, by certain preli-

1075
minary inquiries, before they brought forward a measure of this kind. If they felt it possible that the state of the country might require its exercise they would have been inexcusable if they had not come to parliament for the discretionary power they now sought. They did not declare absolutely that it would be necessary for them to resort to it; but if the quantity of bonded corn were insufficient, and if the harvest, by any accident, were deficient, it might be fit that, being so armed, they should make use of the means placed in their hands. They had seen enough of the spirit prevailing, not in parliament merely, but throughout the country, to render them extremely careful in the discharge of their duty; or at least, by a wanton employment of their power, not to risk national disapprobation. Another consideration was not unworthy of attention. Those who thought that measures of this kind would not affect, or at least not materially injure, the agricultural interest, were bound to make some sacrifices to the feelings and prejudices of those who undoubtedly looked forward with great anxiety. He believed that the House of Lords possessed, and justly possessed, as much of the love and confidence of the country as the more popular branch of the legislature. By the permanency of the seats their lordships held, they perhaps paid less attention to the passing clamours and wishes of the people; but, at the same time, it was the duty of the House to pay regard, in a case like this, to the strong feeling existing out of doors, and to shew sympathy for the sufferings of those who calculated upon a far greater degree of relief than the measure was likely to afford. He would be one of the last to yield to clamour, or to recommend the House to be intimidated into an improper concession; but, in this instance, little or nothing in fact was given, while their lordships would free themselves from the odium which many were desirous of throwing upon that House. If, after all, a real scarcity were to occur, ministers would act upon their responsibility, and might introduce a still further quantity beyond what was at present bonded in the warehouses. Regretting the necessity for these propositions; lamenting, too, the injurious consequences which even the present discussion might have; he thought that the House could, and ought, to keep this question distinct from the revision of the Corn-laws. He considered that he was
1076
by no means prejudging that great subject, and was convinced that, for the sake of the country at large, it was necessary to afford to the agricultural interest permanent and efficient protection. It was, however, both odious and unnecessary to resist measures that might be useful to a certain degree, could do little or no injury, and would be welcomed with gratitude by a large body who were at present suffering the severest deprivations.
The Earl of Roseberryexplained. He meant to state, that the distresses of the manufacturing districts arose out of a total deficiency of means to purchase food.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought the arguments of the noble earl who had just addressed their lordships somewhat singular. The noble earl called upon them to make a concession to prejudice; and he would be ready to yield him the concession he demanded, if the noble earl could only show him one instance in which concession had had the effect of weakening, or had not had the effect of strengthening, prejudice. But, what was the course by which the noble earl arrived at that recommendation? He, first of all, supposed a case of necessity which did not, in fact, exist. Then he demanded a concession to prejudice, which, he admitted, would carry no relief with it; and upon such grounds required, that their lordships should grant a dispensing power to government, which upon a subject connected with the price of food, ought to be intrusted to no man. When a motion was opposed, it was usual for the opposer to endeavour to shew that nobody could accede to it; but the course taken by the noble earl was widely different, for he struggled to prove, that it was impossible for any man to found an objection to the motion. Another complaint was, that the terms of the motion were ambiguous; but to him it seemed that the terms were most simple and intelligible. The meaning of it was merely this—that, four years ago, after patient inquiry, a law had been passed regarding the importation of grain; that the House was now required to alter that law without inquiry; and that it was fit that a previous investigation should be instituted. With whom, he would ask, did the existing Corn-law originate? With the noble earl opposite and his colleagues, and if the noble earl was, as he professed, unable to explain that law, who was com-

1077
petent to do it? The law of 1815 was the work of ministers, and the present chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed it. The law of 1822 was theirs also; and it was a little too much to listen quietly to the declamation of the noble earl against the very measure of which he was the author. The House and the country were told, that there was great apprehension of a famine. It was singular that any noble lord, much less a noble lord opposite, forming one of an administration accustomed to public affairs from their boyhood, should be the first to set up the cry of a famine price; which was scarcely less terrifying than the cry of fire in a crowded theatre. He could see no reason for these gloomy apprehensions: if the last harvest had been short —if the approaching harvest were deficient—or if the supplies from Ireland had not increased, there might be some ground for them; at present, however, the fatal anticipations of the noble earl seemed derived from no better authority than the "Vox Stellarum," or the infallible predictions of the renowned Moore. When ministers last year had proposed an alteration of the law relating to bonded corn, he had supported the measure; but he was surprised that any noble lord should think that a vote in favour of that bill, at all governed a vote upon the present question. For himself, he never would consent to place the granaries of our national food in the hands of those who were jealous of our national greatness. The very manner in which the present measures were brought forward, were of a nature to cause opposition to them. But, there were other and stronger grounds upon which he meant to oppose them. After the solemn pledge given by his majesty's ministers, that the Corn-laws were not to be meddled with this year, it was too much to introduce such measures as those which had been agitated in another place. He should ever object to a course of proceeding which might be considered in no other light than as a premium to insurrection. He considered those measures as a great injustice to the agricultural interest. The agriculturists had suffered long and severely, and were now but slowly recovering from the depression under which they laboured; and it was too bad that ministers should throw upon them the whole burthen of relief to be afforded to the distressed manufacturers. When he recollected the calum-
1078
nies which had been heaped upon the agriculturists—when he called to mind the unfair, the disgraceful manner, in which they had been spoken of, he could not help feeling that it was too bad to add injustice to injury. He had every confidence in the noble earl, and would freely trust to his management and direction any measure which had for its object the relief of the country; but looking to the measures which had been introduced in 1815 and 1822, he could not help thinking that those measures did not originate with that noble lord; nor should he be led to think otherwise, unless it was so declared to him by the noble lord himself. Besides, their lordships should consider, that, if they adopted those measures, they were not confiding them to the management of the noble earl, but to those who acted with him—and, not only to them, but to such other persons as might afterwards fill their situations; for it was clear that such a power, if granted now, could not be refused upon any similar occasion which might arise in future. He would never consent to give a previous indemnity for an intended alteration of the law. He called upon their lordships to consider the varying price of corn, and the difficulty, he should say the impossibility, of fixing a steady, undeviating price for that article: and then to reflect that they were called upon to give up the regulating price of that article to the varying opinions of varying individuals. If their lordships granted this power to the noble earl and his colleagues, they must be prepared to grant it to their successors, whoever they might happen to be. If they did grant it, then there was at once an end to all money contracts; and his majesty's ministers would have, in effect, the power of making what was called an equitable adjustment of all contracts entered into. He hoped the noble lord's motion for an inquiry would pass, as he was fearful of taking a single step in such a matter without previous inquiry. By such a course only would they be in a condition to legislate for the advantage of the country.
The Earl of Westmorelandopposed the motion. He defended ministers from the charge of inconsistency brought against them upon this question. The indisposition to alter the Corn-laws, or in any way meddle with them, had attached solely to the circumstances of the country at the time in which that opinion had

1079
been broached. It did not follow from the propositions now made by his majesty's ministers, that they thought the Corn-laws bad in themselves, any more than it followed that those who sometimes voted for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act thought that law a bad one. This proposition was brought forward under peculiar circumstances, when distress prevailed in many parts of the country. In such a state of things, and at a time when the price of corn was advancing, ministers would not have done their duty if they had not come down to parliament, and asked, to be intrusted with these powers. He was much surprised at the arguments made use of by some noble lords on this occasion. They were told that there was no prospect of dearth; and that, even though there were that prospect, ministers should take the whole responsibility on themselves, without coming to parliament. The distress that prevailed, connected even with the present price of corn, was in itself sufficiently alarming. It should be recollected, that if, on the 15th of August next, the price was under 80 s., not a grain of corn could be imported till the 15th of November following; so that, if ministers were not intrusted with this power, the ports might continue shut for four months, though the country was suffering under the greatest distress. Whatever might be the price in May, no conclusion could be drawn from that as to what the price would be in November. It had occurred more than once within the last twenty years, that, from a price of 60 s. or 70 s. in May, com was up at 100 s. or 110 s. in the December following. Would ministers have done their duty if they had not taken some step calculated to prevent such a state of things. When noble lords advised his majesty's government to act upon their own responsibility, they referred to what had taken place in the year 1766. It was true that the ministry of that year, acting upon their own responsibility, did lay an embargo upon the exportation of corn, under circumstances which certainly justified the act; but, he begged leave to ask noble lords, did parliament pass over such conduct without observation? No such thing. Ministers were then told that the king's prerogative of dispensing with the laws was a dangerous one; that the king, in fact, had no such prerogative, that it was an act of power which the salus
1080
populi justified; but then those ministers were told, that such distress as then existed could not come unawares upon a cautious ministry—that the indications of that distress had been plain enough, long before the dissolution of parliament, and that it was the duty of ministers, under such circumstances, to come down to parliament, and ask for powers to enable them to meet such a state of things. The step recommended by the parliament of that period was the very step taken by his majesty's ministers of the present day; and, in taking that step, his majesty's ministers believed that they were acting constitutionally, and upon principles which would meet the approbation of parliament. The power asked for by his majesty's government was a discretionary power; and for the exercise of their discretion, they would be as responsible to parliament as if they were to act upon their own responsibility. To suppose that his majesty's government would, for the purpose of carrying a particular object, exercise the power granted by parliament, would be to suppose that they would act in a way in which no men, composing the ministry of this country, would venture to act. If the power asked for by his majesty's government should be granted by parliament, they would be bound not to exercise it, except under such very pressing circumstances as would justify the exercise of such power; and he trusted, if it should be granted, that his majesty's government would exercise it in such a manner as to meet the approbation of their lordships.
Earl Grosvenor,in giving his vote for the motion of the noble earl, said, he thought it necessary to state, that although he had acquiesced in the measure for letting out the bonded corn, he did not think himself bound to acquiesce in the second measure, for allowing the importation of five-hundred thousand quarters of foreign grain. He begged to call the attention of their lordships, and particularly such of their lordships as were in the habit of supporting the measures of ministers, to the vacillation of government upon this and other questions. The measures proposed by his majesty's government were justified by the distress which existed in the country. Now, he asked their lordships were they not aware of the existence of that distress long before it manifested itself in acts amounting almost to insurrection? His

1081
majesty's ministers were bound to know of the existence of that distress; and he could not believe that they were not aware of it. When a noble marquis suggested the propriety of granting a sum of public money for the relief of the distress, the noble earl had then said, that the precedent would be a bad one. He agreed with him, that, under ordinary circumstances, such a precedent would be bad, but he must say that he thought the distress had at that time reached such a height, as would justify the application of public money in the way suggested. However, the noble earl was of a different opinion; and to his surprise in a few days afterwards, submitted a motion to their lordships for letting the foreign corn out of bond. He was ready to admit, that the measures submitted by his majesty's government did not formally affect the general question of the Corn-laws; but what he complained of was, that they affected the question in the minds of the country at large. He objected to the second measure, because he was satisfied there was not a landed proprietor in the country who did not believe, that whatever duty might be fixed upon by ministers, with respect to the admission of foreign corn this year, would be taken as a standard duty upon every future discussion. He objected to the measure, because the quantity proposed to be imported into this country was limited. If corn should rise to the price anticipated by ministers, nothing could be more unfortunate than the limitation; because, if distress, occasioned by an increased price of corn, should arise, nothing could relieve it but an unlimited importation. He did not at any time feel disposed to place confidence in his majesty's ministers; and that disposition was much lessened by their conduct on this and the currency question. Nothing could be more vacillating than their conduct, and he called upon those noble lords who had hitherto placed confidence in ministers, to withdraw that confidence. He admitted that the average price fixed by the present Corn-laws was too high, but it was not then necessary for him to discuss the subject. If the price of corn should rise to the height anticipated by ministers, then he would say that they would be justified in opening the ports upon their own responsibility. A noble earl opposite, in justifying the motion, had called the attention of their lordships to what
1082
had occurred in the year 1766. The opposition of lord Mansfield, upon that occasion, was founded, not upon the impropriety of the measures adopted by the government of that day, but upon their neglect in bringing in a bill of indemnity immediately after the meeting of parliament. Such opposition he could not anticipate during the next session, because he could not imagine that his majesty's ministers would act in so unconstitutional a manner, as to omit bringing in a bill of indemnity, in case circumstances should call upon them to act upon their own responsibility. He also objected to the period at which those measures had been introduced. He was satisfied if they had been submitted at an earlier period of the session, the country gentlemen in the House of Commons would have risen as one man, and said to ministers, "You must reduce your expenditure; you must reduce taxation; you must do as you ought to have done ten years ago— you must economize to the quick." When he saw how ministers had altered their opinions upon the Scotch and Irish currency, he saw no reason to apprehend that they would not alter their opinion upon the proposed measure, if they were to consent to the motion now before their lordships; a motion which might lead to good, but could not by possibility be productive of any bad effects.
Lord Falmouthsaid, he regretted that the motion had been made at the present moment, because he thought that, if acceded to, it would lead to further inquiry than was at present desirable. He felt himself bound to oppose it, because he thought it a much lesser evil to grant the power asked for by ministers, even if he anticipated that they would exercise it in a way different from that in which he believed it would be exercised, than to accede to the motion of the noble lord, and go into an inquiry, which must necessarily have the effect of increasing the existing ferment.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that if ministers had been actuated by that degree of foresight and forethought which was necessary to conduct the affairs of a great empire, they would not stand in their present predicament. If, two or three weeks ago, when they might have foreseen the existing state of things, and when the noble earl opposite told the House, that he had no intention to meddle directly or indirectly with the Corn-laws this session

1083
—nay, when he had gone so far as to declare, that he had no intention to let out the bonded corn,— if they had then brought forward their present measure it would have been proper, and it should have had his support. The noble marquis near him had proposed a grant of money for the relief of the distressed population; but the noble earl got up in his place, and said, "No, I will not consent to that, but I will alter the Corn-laws, which, two or three weeks ago, I declared I would not meddle with." The noble earl said, that the Corn-laws had nothing to do with the distress of the country; but in his opinion, and in the opinion of most persons, those laws had a great deal to do with them. It was stated, that the notion of the Corn-laws being the occasion of the distress of the country, might do mischief; but, in his opinion, the contrary notion would do more. He regretted the manner in which this subject had been brought forward; and, much as he regretted the principle of the measure, yet, with the possibility of corn reaching a famine price, and the chance of a starving population, he could not bring his mind to reject the proposition of ministers. With respect to the Corn-laws themselves, he had been a friend to their introduction, he had strenuously advocated them, and he thought they had operated much benefit. They had been of service to the agricultural interest, and the manufacturing interest had no reason to complain. But what might be good in 1815, was not therefore good in 1826; circumstances had totally changed. Whatever might be said of the opinion of parliament, the opinion of the country was to be regarded; and that opinion was decidedly against those laws. One principal reason which induced him not to agree to the proposition of his noble friend was, that it would open the whole question of the Corn-laws; and he would ask their lordships, whether it was practicable to arrive at a result during the session? He did not pledge himself to support the measures of ministers; but he thought the discretion they asked for would not be abused, and on that principle he was disposed to concede it to them. Not that he thought the conduct of ministers deserved confidence; on the contrary, he considered that they had acted in a manner which was highly to be censured.
Lord King,with reference to the mis-
1084
chief which it had been said opinions expressed in that House were calculated to create, remarked, that the law was the source of mischief. The noble earl opposite might do his worst, and he himself might do his worst; but no mischief would be the consequence; it was the law itself, the existing Corn-laws, that produced the mischief. The present measure was a very convenient way of getting rid of those laws indirectly; it was a dexterous mode of catching the simple politicians on the opposition side of the House; though, he confessed, it argued some weakness to be so caught. In the face of the measure now introduced, the noble earl opposite still persisted, that there was to be no alteration of the Corn-laws. How this measure would be received on the ministerial side of the House, he could not tell, but he believed this Treasury measure had not been received so cordially on that side as was expected. He did not wish to detract from the merit of the noble lords opposite. He believed the members of his majesty's cabinet were possessed of great experience, and understood pretty well the nature and constitution of noble lords. Still, however, he thought that, as a skilful practitioner, who understood the constitution of his patient, when he altered his diet, would furnish something like a reason for it; so his majesty's ministers ought to satisfy their patients, as to the change they made in their treatment. The noble earl who opened the debate that evening wished for an inquiry; but an inquiry would last for a year. The House knew enough of inquiries from one which had taken place elsewhere. And who were the persons who stood up for inquiry?— the friends of the Corn-laws. He thought that, after the changes which had taken place during eleven years, after the alteration in the currency, and other material changes, it was mere drivelling to say that the Corn-laws required no change. Eleven years was about the average duration of a Chancery suit. He believed there had been a kind of amicable Chancery suit on this question between the Chancery and the Treasury; and the noble Secretary for the colonies—certainly not the most liberal part of the cabinet— had been put forward in defence of the present measure. The freedom of the corn trade was necessary to the prosperity of our manufactures. Every quarter of corn imported from abroad purchased

1085
British manufactures of equal value. Unless foreign corn was admitted into this country our own commodities could not be purchased by foreigners. The real question was, whether a check was to be imposed upon the introduction of raw produce into the country. At present, corn was one third dearer here than it was on the continent; but, if it were three times dearer, then the Corn-laws would appear monstrous. The question was, therefore, one only of degree. There was no period during which the country was in a state of greater prosperity, both commercial and agricultural, than one which was a time of unrestricted importation of corn, from 1782 to 1792. When he looked for the causes of the present distress, he would say they were the Corn-laws. All writers agreed that when raw produce was high, wages would be high, profits low, and the rate of interest low. If that were the case, he was right in attributing the present distress to the Corn-laws. As a friend, therefore, to the alteration of those laws, he would resist the noble earl's motion, because he could have the conclusion he wished for come to a year sooner. As to consistency, he was not concerned about others, but he did not wish for a famine price, even at the loss of that precious consistency. But it was asked, why was there now any danger of a famine price, since corn was lower this year than it was during the last? But, compare it with the relative prices of other articles in the last year, and it would be found, in fact, much higher. He thought there could be no chance of a steady system, without an alteration in the Corn-laws, and he would, therefore, oppose the original motion.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he considered the whole policy of ministers upon the present question to have been vacillating, ambiguous, and unintelligible. It was but a few days since they had declared distinctly, that they did not propose to go into the subject of the Corn-laws during the present session; and he must deny that any change had taken place in the agricultural prospects of the country, which justified a departure from that intention. As for the "possibility" of failing crops, to which they adverted, when was it that such possibility would not be capable of being made an argument? The true secret of the change in the opinions of ministers—and they might as well speak openly and say so—
1086
was the partial tumults which had taken place in the country; and, though no one could be disposed to feel more for the distresses of the unemployed manufacturers than he did, yet it would be just as reasonable to try to alleviate that distress by breaking the power-looms, as by making alterations in the Corn-laws. Ministers did not act openly, in refusing to connect that with their motion which was known to be connected with their motives; and, what was still more, they were taking a course which could afford the distressed parties no relief. It was said by some, that if this measure would not relieve the manufacturers, it would at least conciliate them,—that it would remove a load of public odium from the shoulders of the agriculturists. What was this but to say that it was a popular humbug? For himself, he desired to purchase no such popularity. If the measure now proposed was carried, the effect would be to throw the whole country into confusion. The value of all property, would be in the hands of ministers. No transfer could take place. What surveyor would venture to value—what farmer to take a lease —or what landlord could grant one under such a system? He could never give his assent to such a measure as that contemplated by the noble earl at the head of the government; because if a discretionary power of admitting, during the whole of the recess, a quantity of corn into the country, were given to ministers, there would be a constant fluctuation in the markets, and a total destruction of confidence. He would not therefore give his vote for disturbing the present system of the Corn-laws in any way, without a full and fair inquiry.
Lord Dudley and Wardsaid, that if he were governed by the dislike which he felt to the Corn-laws, he should certainly oppose the measure brought forward by ministers; because he was quite sure that it was only by the aid of occasional alterations, that those laws could possibly continue to exist. It would be well for noble lords, however, to consider in what condition government would be left by a refusal of the power which it now demanded. It would be a very different state of things, the not having provided such a power, and the having asked for it and been refused it. Suppose the most serious scarcity, and consequent distress, to arise in the country. All that ministers could say would be, that parlia-

1087
ment had refused to interfere, and that they themselves could not presume to do it. Government would stand in this curious predicament,—it might call out the troops, proclaim martial law, and fire upon the populace, or leave them to die of starvation; but it must not take the very course which would at once put an end to the danger and to the difficulty, it must not let in corn to save a starving, and perhaps insurgent, people. In such circumstances, he trusted that the salus populi would always be superior to every other consideration. He hoped that, should such pressure arise, ministers would spurn all barriers, and do, at all hazards, that which seemed to them to be for the benefit of the country. But he would ask the House this—must not ministers be disposed to hold out longer than they would otherwise have done, to let the mischief go further before they ventured to apply the remedy to it—under the circumstances of having consulted parliament, and been met with a negative,— than they would have been, if no such application had been made? For the sake of the cause which the agriculturists themselves supported, he hoped that parliament would run no such dangerous risk. Ill as he thought of the Corn-laws, he did not wish to see them swept away on the sudden. He believed that, if such a course were pursued, the public mind would not be sufficiently tranquil to allow that to be done which was necessary to the safety of the agricultural interest. He would therefore give his vote against the motion of the noble earl.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that the rejection of his noble friend's motion would propagate that delusion which good sense must disclaim. It had been said, that some persons objected to the first proposition of ministers, while others only objected to the second. For his part, he had no scruple in saying that he objected to both. There ought to be no alteration in the principle of the law, without a previous inquiry, and it should be proved that those measures were either not an innovation, or that they were justified by necessity; because the British grower was protected by the law until there was scarcity at home. With reference to the declaration made by ministers of their intention to alter the law, he would ask, did the price of corn cause the distress? Numerous other causes were assigned; amongst them were over-trading and excessive specula-
1088
tions, but corn was not. If so, there was no necessity for an alteration upon that score. If the admission of the bonded corn could give relief, he would be disposed to entertain that proposition; but it was admitted, that the quantity of corn now in bond would have little effect on the prices, and if so, what benefit could it afford the distressed districts, where great want of money prevailed? That, perhaps, might be a cause. Perhaps the farmers might not choose to send to a market where they could not be paid. He had read in a paper of the day, an anecdote relative to Stockport, where there was great want of potatoes, because the farmers did not send any there. Besides, the duty on bonded corn ought not to be taken as revenue; but was in fairness due to the agriculturists who were injured by its introduction. Again, as to the discretionary power to be intrusted to ministers, he would ask where was the necessity for it? Ministers might have had information, which caused the change in their measures; but that information should be given to their lordships. He had no wish for an interminable inquiry, but such a one as would satisfy reasonable persons. He was happy to hear the constitutional doctrine laid down, of the ministers not being willing to take any thing upon themselves without the sanction of parliament, but he thought the system should not be disturbed; seeing that he considered a fixed system, even though a defective one, to be preferable to constant change.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he felt naturally anxious to seize the opportunity of offering to the House his opinion on this question, and he could not take a better opportunity, nor one more agreeable to himself, than immediately after his noble friend who had last spoken. If his noble friend meant to say, that he (lord Liverpool) thought that the Corn-bill, passed in the year 1815, was not applicable to the present times, he acknowledged that his noble friend was perfectly right. If his noble friend said, that he thought that the Corn-bill of 1822 was not applicable to the present year, and that it ought to be altered, he was right in that also. That was the very nature of such a question as this. It must be always variable; and their lordships should adapt the system to the circumstances of the times. In the year 1815 their lordships adapted the Corn-laws to the circumstances of the times, by fixing the average price of wheat

1089
at 80 s. per quarter, before importation of foreign wheat was to be permitted. If, however, it was true, as indeed it was, that a sum, amounting to twenty-seven millions of taxes had been taken off since 1815—if those taxes consisted of the tax on salt, on leather, on agricultural horses, &c. all which taxes bore directly on the agricultural classes, he would ask, if there was any noble lord in that House, who, after due consideration, would not admit that a price of 60 s. per quarter now, was not equal to 80 s. per quarter in 1815? Then, no noble lord would venture to say, that the circumstances of the country in 1815, could be compared with those of 1826, or that the Corn-laws of the former period were applicable to the latter. He had more than once before declared and he would then repeat it—that the measures under consideration at present in the other House of Parliament, had nothing at all to do with the general question of the Corn-laws. He was not without having formed his opinion of the present Corn-laws; but whatever that opinion was, it was not necessary then to state it. Whatever it was, it had no relation to the present question before the other House. He believed that those bills in the other House, so far from being an innovation on the present system of Corn-laws, would be, in reality, a security to the agricultural interests. Very early in this session, it would be remembered by noble lords, that he most sincerely, most frankly, and most honestly, he must be allowed to add, said, that the present session was not such a time as would be proper for making any change in the Corn-laws. He only then said what he would repeat now. Whether the measures under the consideration of the other House were right or wrong, he would ask their lordships, whether the present was a proper session, or this the proper period of the session, to enter into the consideration of the general question of the Corn-laws? He entreated their lordships to allow those measures, to which allusion was so often made, to stand or fall on their own merits, and not to prejudge them. Their lordships ought first to learn what the import of them was, and then enter into a dispassionate consideration of them. The noble lord who moved this question put their lordships on their guard, and stated that, when those measures came up from the other House, their lordships must take them as they came, and either approve or reject them; seeing that they could
1090
not make any alteration in them. But the noble lord was mistaken, in saying that their lordships could not make any alteration in those measures; for every part of them could be altered except the duty, whatever that would be fixed at by the other House. But, he would call their lordships' attention to the true grounds of those measures. He contended, that there was no change of opinion upon his part. His opinion on the Corn-laws generally was precisely the same as at the opening of the session. He however freely admitted, that circumstances had occurred, which did not exist nor were contemplated, when he made the statement alluded to. Those circumstances were such as to render special and temporary measures necessary; namely, the distresses of the manufacturers. He did not mean the partial insurrections, and the destruction of power-looms, which were as foolish as they were unwarrantable, but the sufferings endured in Lancashire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, and other districts. The poor sufferers had, with few exceptions, conducted themselves in a most exemplary manner on this trying occasion, and had submitted peaceably to the laws of their country. The distress had certainly increased much beyond the expectations of government, and even beyond that of the manufacturers themselves; for when the deputations from the country applied for assistance from government in the beginning of the year, they gave it as their opinion, that if they could get over two or three months, every thing would go on well; that trade would revive, and the distress would be completely at an end. When a season of calamity unexpectedly came upon us, it was a question very often asked—"Why did you not do yesterday what you propose to do to-day?" Indeed, it was a matter of no little difficulty to know precisely how to act on such occasions.—But to revert to the present case. The distress arrived at such a height, and assumed such a serious appearance, that it became at last imperatively incumbent on the government to see if some specific remedy could not be devised for its alleviation; or at any rate if something could not be done to prevent its spreading wider. He particularly wished that he should not be misunderstood, or that it should be supposed that he thought the high price of corn was the origin of or had any thing to do with, the present distress. He had never said, or even imagined, that such

1091
was the case. He considered that the present calamities had arisen from overtrading, and an abuse of the prosperity which the country had lately enjoyed. This was, no doubt, the main source of the evil. At the same time it would be equally absurd to say, that the high price of provisions was no aggravation of the evil; but he wished their lordships to examine into the grounds which called for the adoption of the present measures. Every one who had at all examined into this matter must have ascertained, that this country grew scarcely sufficient corn for its own consumption. There certainly were shades of difference in the opinion of individuals on this point; but it was admitted by all, that England, Scotland, and Ireland, grew very little more corn than what they could consume themselves, even when there was a prosperous crop and a favourable harvest. If such, then, were the case, what would be likely to be the situation of the country, if there should happen to be an unfavourable harvest? He wished this question to be considered quite as much with a view to the agricultural interests as to the manufacturing, or to the interests of any other class of the community. There were two periods at which great injury might be sustained by the corn—one when the wheat was in the flower, another when it was nearly ripe. We were not without a sad experience on this subject. If the accounts of the various harvests for a period of thirty two years, commencing in the year 1790, and ending in that of 1822, were examined into, it would be found, that there had been eleven very defective harvests. There was no trusting to first appearances or fair prospects in this matter. A single week, nay, a single day might blast the fairest hopes, and turn an apparent abundance into a most terrible scarcity. As a proof of the accuracy of his statement, he would call to their lordships' recollection the situation of the country at the end of June, in the year 1816. At no period could the prospects of the harvest be brighter; and yet, before the end of June, those prospects had entirely failed: they were destroyed in the course of a single day. That day, he recollected well, and all the melancholy consequences which followed from it. The price of corn, then at 52 s. the quarter, rose quickly to 100 s. and 110 s. Their lordships would readily conceive what a disastrous effect such a circumstance, and such a fluctuation in prices,
1092
must have caused in the country; but, if such a calamity were to occur now, in the existing state of the country, what terrible consequences might be apprehended! In the first place, the ports could not be opened until the 14th of August; and even then, if the averages should happen to be against us, we should have to wait three months longer, until the 14th of November. This was the case in 1816. There was no evil which would bear any comparison with this: it operated as a most enormous tax upon the community, and especially upon the lower orders of it. But perhaps it would be said, this evil might not happen; and why should not this power be required any other year as well as the present one? He would make no scruple in saying, that he did consider it a defect, and a very great one, in the present system, that it should require such a power to be lodged any where at any time, in order to correct the evils which might otherwise arise from it; but he conceived this power was peculiarly called for under the existing circumstances of the country. If this scarcity should come in times of prosperity, it might be tolerated; but when great distress prevailed amongst the manufacturing population, the case was widely different. Would, then, their lordships, with the present state of the country before their eyes, refuse this power to government? Whatever might be their opinion as to the propriety of granting it for another year, except as to the general defects of the system, he trusted they would see the necessity of conceding it at present. He felt persuaded that their lordships would not think it right that no provision should be made by parliament to enable government to interfere, if it should so happen that corn, as it had done at a former period, rose to 100 s. or 110 s. per quarter; and that, although, under other circumstances, their lordships might feel averse to conceding this power, they would not object to grant it, when they took into consideration the present condition of the country.—From what he had said, he thought he had sufficiently shown, that it was no argument at all against this measure, to say that this scarcity might happen any year. His noble friend had said, where is the proof of the necessity for this measure? He had already stated his case, and he thought he had sufficiently made out the necessity. He would leave it to their lordships whether they were

1093
willing to run the risk, and place the country in the situation in which it would be placed, if a bad harvest should occur, and ministers should not have the power to remedy the evils which would be occasioned thereby. It had been urged against this measure, that the poor manufacturers were in want of work, not in want of bread. He was ready to admit, and with sorrow he said it, that many of them were without work; but still many more who had work were obliged to work at the lowest possible wages. Several, who a short time ago could make from 18 s. to 20 s. per week, were now reduced to work at from 7s. to 6s. or even 5s. per week. Was it no consideration to persons in this unhappy situation, whether they paid a little more or a little less for the quartern loaf? He trusted he had, by showing what the situation of the country might be, and indeed what it actually was at present, convinced their lordships, that this measure was not uncalled for, or ministers desired to have any power intrusted to them which might not be absolutely necessary for the safety of the country. But it had been said, that this was calculated to injure the agricultural interests. If corn were to rise to 100 s. or 110 s., as it did in 1816, he was convinced that the noble marquis would be the last man in the country who would object to the importation of foreign corn to alleviate the distress, or rather the starvation, which would be occasioned by such a rise. Government did not propose at all events to exercise the power which they asked to have intrusted to them; they only desired to be prepared to use it, if adverse circumstances should render the exercise of it necessary to preserve the country from famine. He did not wish government to be intrusted with this power, on the ground of any peculiar confidence being placed in them. It was a power, which, in his opinion, under existing circumstances, ought to be intrusted to any ministry. It was the interest of government not to abuse this power; and he wished their lordships to rely upon that, more than upon any confidence they might place in them. It had been said, "let ministers act upon their own discretion, and then come to parliament for an indemnity;" but there was no discretionary power for which ministers were not responsible. A noble lord had said, that this was not his measure; but he would unhesitatingly answer, that if any one in-
1094
dividual was more culpable than another in advising this measure, he was that person. It was not the intention of ministers to exercise this power, except upon the utmost emergency, and for the purpose of saving their fellow subjects from famine. As he had before said, he would not enter into the general question of the Corn-laws, but he could not refrain from observing, that he thought some alteration in those laws necessary, and that the present could never be looked upon as a fixed system. Indeed this subject had been legislated upon several times, and various and contradictory plans had been adopted; and when it was last brought before the legislature in 1822, that bill was so far from being considered final, that further legislative measures were expressly provided for. Indeed it formed a great objection to that bill at the time that it was not intended to effect a final settlement of the question. It had been objected that government were willing to sacrifice the agricultural interests, in their negotiations with foreign countries, for the purpose of advancing their plan of a free trade. Now, in order that their lordships might judge as to how far this imputation was correct, he would state to their lordships what answer had been returned to the Prussian government, which had endeavoured to obtain favourable terms for the admission of its corn upon condition of taking our manufactures in return. That answer was in substance as follows: —That the British government could never entertain a proposition for any alteration in the Corn-laws of this country, which did not originate in the British dominions themselves. This answer was returned in the month of February last, and he thought it pretty clearly evinced the sentiments and feelings of ministers on this subject, who, in doing away with that system of prohibition, which they certainly did wish to get rid of as far as it was possible, had refused even to make this a matter of negotiation. This, he thought, sufficiently proved that ministers were no enemies to the agricultural interests. They wished to look at the question, taking the agricultural as well as all the other great interests of the country into consideration; and they wished that a just and equitable arrangement should be come to between all parties, which should be settled and final, as far as circumstances would admit of its being so. But he must again observe, that these measures

1095
had nothing to do with the Corn-laws. They were special provisions to meet special circumstances, and they would not be had recourse to, unless the safety of the country should require it.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he rose at that lute hour briefly to offer his opinion upon the motion now under their lordships' consideration. If ever inquiry into any question were called for, never did an occasion arise on which it was more incumbent on their lordships to institute one, in reference to all the interests now under their deliberation, than on the system of the Corn-laws; and he had no difficulty in stating it as the settled conviction of his mind, that at no distant period the whole system must be brought under a review of parliament; and it was because the alteration suggested by the noble earl opposite was a temporary alteration, not preceded by inquiry, that he now objected to it. He looked forward to a permanent alteration, preceded by inquiry, which alone could enable their lordships to judge of the expediency of the change, and the expediency of the system to be substituted for the one the defects of which they sought to remove. Let their lordships look at the effect that would be produced by the proposed temporary alteration, not sanctioned by inquiry, not only upon the agricultural, but on all the other interests. It was not founded upon any special emergency —not upon the probability of a famine, because if there were such a probability, the noble earl would not have failed to allege it. One of two things must therefore have been proposed, and the noble earl could not escape from the dilemma—either it was intended to make the alteration, which was nominally temporary, permanent, without affording the opportunity of seeing the grounds which rendered it necessary —or there existed apprehensions upon grounds not stated, and he therefore presumed there were none, of a scarcity— an evil which, if it did arise, would be more effectually met by government exercising a sound discretion on the expediency or otherwise of opening the ports, than as such a measure of legislation as this, legislation in the dark, which was always attended with mischievous effects, but most so when it affected the subsistence of the people. It seemed to him, that all the arguments which had been adduced by the noble earl in favour of having such a power lodged with government, would
1096
apply to any other time or season quite as well as to the present time; or, indeed, that they might be advanced as reasons why this should, instead of being a mere temporary measure, become a permanent law. Indeed the inconvenience in the latter case would be much less than in the former; for then every farmer would take his farm with a view to such law. From some artificial system respecting the Corn-laws, it was not possible for us to escape. As long as the country was burdened with taxation as it was at present, we could not altogether get rid of the inconveniences of this artificial taxation. A noble earl, whom he was proud to call his friend, had observed most justly, that there might be a bad system; but the worst of all bad systems was a changeable and fluctuating system, which caused every man who had embarked his capital under the faith of certain laws, to be driven out of his calculations by the fickle and vacillating conduct of parliament. With regard to the production of corn, the uncertainties of nature were quite sufficient; but the case of the agriculturists became truly deplorable when they had not merely to look to the winds of Heaven, but had also to depend on the breath of parliament as to the value of their crops. It was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country, that some fixed and permanent system should be adopted. The noble earl had disclaimed all interference at present with the permanent system which he stated it to be his intention, at some future period, to suggest for their lordships' adoption. But the present alteration, although only temporary, was not the less an alteration, which would for the time affect all the permanent interests of the country as much as a permanent law; and with this evil, that it did not pretend to the advantage of settling the question for ever. The proposed measure would have all the inconvenience of an alteration, with the certainty that in another year there would be another alteration, the extent and tendency of which could not be calculated. On such questions the interests of the country could not, he thought, be more advantageously considered than by intrusting them to the care of responsible ministers. A noble lord had drawn a most affecting picture of the distress and desolation which might ensue, if this power should not be intrusted to ministers, and a season of scarcity should

1097
arise: but in answer to that, he would say, that the apprehended calamity could not occur, at least, as long as we had any government in the country. For no person would be fit to hold the situation of minister in this country, who, if such an emergency should arise, would hesitate one moment in taking upon himself the responsibility of averting the famine, by committing a glorious breach of the law; and there was no ground on which a minister might act more safely. But, indeed, we were not without a precedent in the history of the country; for what was the objection raised against lord Chatham and lord Camden in 1766? It was not that they ought not to have such an indemnity granted to them, but that they acted as if they had a dispensing power, and did not even condescend to ask for such indemnity, though it was, in fact, tendered to them; and it was also urged against them, that they ought to have broken the law, and called the parliament together without the forty days' notice which the law then required; but owing to the alteration of the law which had taken place in this respect, ministers might now convene parliament at once, if circumstances should occur to render such a step necessary. He thought it would be attended with far less mischievous effects if ministers were to be left to act on their own responsibility, than that they should proceed to legislate on contingencies which might possibly occur, and which must have the effect of sounding an alarm all through the country. For by the sudden adoption of this measure, which no one dreamt of three weeks ago, the people must argue, either that the noble earl intended indirectly to strike at the root of the Corn-laws, or that he had good reasons for apprehending that there would be a scarcity of corn. The former of these suppositions was calculated to cause a great artificial rise in corn, and the latter a great artificial fall. In his opinion, all extraordinary exigencies should be met by the determination of the moment, and when they arrived. He could only imagine one exigency which would call for this measure, and if that existed, it became government to reveal it to a committee, or at any rate a secret committee of the House. It was in vain to say that this measure was not intended to affect the question of the Corn-laws; people would not credit it: it unavoidably created a very extraordinary
1098
excitement. He felt convinced that, under the responsibility he had mentioned, the country might proceed safely until the next session of parliament. As the question had been generally disclaimed, he would not enter into any argument respecting the Corn-laws; but he felt persuaded that the opposition of interests, which was at present supposed to exist between the agriculturists and the manufacturers, would gradually disappear; and that each party would, at last, become convinced that it would be impossible to establish any permanent system which could be injurious to one, without at the same time being prejudicial to the other. If, by any unfortunate circumstance, the legislature were to be composed exclusively of landed or exclusively of commercial men, and were wickedly to confederate for the purpose of throwing all the burthens of the state on the other class, those burthens, by a law as certain as the law of gravitation, would gradually settle on the shoulders of all. If noble lords would refer to the report of Mr. Jacob, which had been alluded to in the course of the evening, they would find the wretched state in which the landed proprietors in the north of Germany were, in consequence of the absence of that commercial interest which would have enabled them to convert their produce into the means of enjoyment. It was the same with commerce. The commercial interest had been taught to consider cheap corn a desideratum; but if the cheapness of corn was such as to ruin the agriculturist, the ruin of the manufacturer must soon follow. Both interests had one common object, and it was only by a fair adjustment between them, that a sound and permanent Corn-law could eventually be established. Acting upon that principle, he trusted, that whenever parliament should be again called upon to consider the subject, they would close the account between legislation and corn for ever.
The House divided on lord Bathurst's amendment: — Contents 96. Proxies 70–,166. Not-contents 42. Proxies 18–67—Majority 99.