Sitting of 24 November 1826

KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Speakerreported his Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons; —I thank you for this loyal and dutiful Address. I rely with confidence on your affectionate support; and you may depend upon my continued exertions to uphold the honour and interests of the nation, to cultivate the blessings of peace abroad, and to promote, at home, the welfare of all classes of my subjects."

BOROUGH OF TREGONY.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that, as the subject of his present motion was intimately connected with the privileges of that House, it would, of course, take precedence of every other. He would commence by requesting the clerk to read the return to the Crown-office relative to the borough of Tregony.
The clerk then read the entry, in which there appeared the names of Stephen Lushington and James Brougham, returned with, and annexed to, the writ; and of James Adam Gordon and James Mackillop, returned with, bat not annexed to, the writ.
Mr. Abercrombythen proceeded to observe, that the simple reading of that entry might be almost sufficient to establish beyond contradiction, that there had been no double return for the borough in question, and that the entry in the book ought to be forthwith rectified, by order of
116
the House. It was well known that the course of proceeding, in the election of a member of parliament, was this: the writ, in the first place, issues from the Crown-office to the sheriff of the county, and he, in compliance with the order contained in it, again issues what is called a precept to the returning officer of each borough within his county, in which he calls upon that officer to hold the election, and make the return to him by a certain time. When the election has been held in virtue of this precept, the returning officer annexes the indenture of the return to the precept, and sends it to the sheriff, who transmits it with such indenture to the clerk of the Crown. This was the ordinary and established course of proceeding, from which, he conceived, they never had departed, and from which no departure could, with any regard to the preservation of their own privileges or the rights of the electors, take place. This ordinary and established practice had been strictly followed, as regarded one of the indentures. The sheriff had directed his precept to the mayor of Tregony, an officer who had been duly sworn in by virtue of a writ of Mandamus; and this alone, he conceived, was sufficient for the purpose he had in view, because, as it was acknowledged that it was the duty of the sheriff to select that person who was, in his judgment, the proper returning officer, the indenture which that officer returned along with the precept must be considered as the legal return to the sheriff; and therefore Dr. Lushington and James Brougham, esq. must be considered as the duly elected members for the borough of Tregony. There had been, however, a great error committed, which it was the duty of that House to correct. The first return stated, upon the face of it, that it was made by virtue of a precept issued from the sheriff; while the second was only described as being in virtue of the writ, and therefore could not be maintained. This return was also invalid, as it was represented to be made by the deputy of the mayor; an officer not selected by the sheriff' for the performance of the duty. That gentleman had before issued his precept to the mayor, and it had been complied with by the first return of an indenture annexed to the writ; while the second return, made by an officer not appointed by him, and avowedly by virtue of the writ, could not for a moment be

117
considered in the light of a double return. The sheriff, it was obvious, had not so considered it; for if he had done so, it was plain that he would have felt himself bound to return it, as well as the other annexed to the writ. He apprehended that the case of the borough of Helstone was a perfect illustration of the principle which he wished to maintain for the guidance of their decision. In that case there was one return made by virtue of a precept, and the other by virtue of a writ. The sheriff, in that case, did not presume to act upon his own responsibility, but took the advice of two of the most eminent lawyers of the day—Mr. Serjeant Davy and Mr. Buller—as to the course which he ought to pursue. These gentlemen gave what he considered n safe rather than a manly advice. They desired the sheriff not to take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting persons returned to him in that manner, but to send the names to the clerk of the Crown, and throw upon him the whole burthen of acting as he thought his duty might direct. They did not take the true manly course and say to him, "you have issued your precept—you have received a return —and any thing else which accompanies must be considered as mere waste of paper." No: they threw the responsibility on the clerk of the Crown, and left the parties afterwards to prove their respective titles. This, he repeated, was the safe but not the manly or the correct course; for it was competent for any person, by a very small sum of money, to keep out of parliament any two men he thought proper, on the most, critical occasion. If that House had been assembled for any vitally interesting purpose, instead of being called together to give their assent to a measure upon winch all were agreed, it might have been in the power of any man to keep out any number of the hon. gentlemen opposite, from the present period until the ensuing March, by precisely the same expedient. The learned gentleman then contended, that it was the bounden duty of the sheriff to have returned those mimes only which were annexed to the precept he had issued, and to have presumed that the others were not legally elected, until they had been enabled to establish their title elsewhere. It might be agreeable to those who were always applauding the wisdom of their ancestors to know, that this doc-
118
trine of presumption, in such cases, had been held to be the proper course, as far back as the reign of James the 1st. In that reign, a person named Holford had been elected for Pontefract and for Stock-bridge. Ho made his election for Stock-bridge, and in some discussions respecting the election upon the new writ, to which a return was made by virtue of precept and of writ, the House decided, that the sheriff was bound to presume the return to the precept to be correct, until some-tiling was proved to the contrary. The case of Liskeard was somewhat different; but Helleston was quite in point; and he now contended that the House was bound, for the protection of its own rights, to shew that the sheriff was bound to return the indenture of his office, and that alone. —There was another extraordinary circumstance connected with this matter, which he would mention without comment; and that was, that when the agent, of the sheriff carried the precepts for his county to the Crown-office, one of the clerks there told him, that there was another return for Tregony, and wished him to fix it to the precept. The agent replied, that he was directed to leave that precept with the indenture separately and distinctly, as the return of the sheriff, and he would leave it in the state he had received it, without alteration. Subsequently there appeared in the Gazette, a notice of the members elected for Tregony, in which the names of Cordon and Mackillop appeared before those of Lushington and Brougham, who had been returned on the precept; and when this matter was mentioned in the course of the proceedings, the agent was told, that it did not signify what, appeared in the Gazette, the entry would be found to be correct in the book returned to the clerk of the House.—The thing of which he principally complained was, that the first return, that of the earliest date, was superseded in the Crown-office, and that the return of which he complained was substituted for it. And that was the more the subject of just complaint, as one was on the 13th of June, and the other on the 17th, and still more as the precept was affixed to the writ in one instance, and not in the other. Such a return, he contended, could not be maintained or supported by the House. He therefore thought, that the obvious proceeding for the House to adopt was, to reject the

119
return which was informal, and therefore nugatory; and to leave to any party which might feel itself aggrieved, the opportunity of appealing to the House for redress for any injury it might sustain from the decision of the House; a redress which, on a representation of just ground of complaint, he was satisfied the House would be ready to afford. He concluded, by moving, "That the Indenture by which James Adam Gordon and James Mackillop esquires, were returned to serve in parliament for the borough of Tregony, be taken off the file."
Mr. Wynnassured the hon. and learned member that he should not have thought himself at all disorderly in interrupting him before he had concluded his speech, had he been aware that his motion would have taken the shape which he had eventually given it. The hon. and learned member commenced by telling them, that he had a motion to submit on a matter connected with their privileges; but, in fact, he had concluded with a proposition which was against law, and against the usage of that House. The details with which the learned gentleman had favoured them, would have been perfectly in place, before an election committee, legally constituted for the investigation of the alleged irregularity; but when addressed to that House, which had no power to entertain the subject, they were useless to all purpose, but to prejudge the question. What was the substance of the motion? That that House should of its own authority, order a return to be taken off the file. If the learned member could persuade the House to such a course, the next thing he must do, would be to bring in a bill to repeal all the acts relating to elections passed by that House since the commencement of legislation on the subject. If the House were to controvert a return made to it, in the manner now proposed, it would lead to the greatest inconveniences. For if, under any pretence, they were once to arrogate to themselves such a power, there would be always plenty of cases, with circumstances of a special and peculiar nature, to demand their interference. It was the established practice of the House, in cases of this kind,' to refer the matter in the first instance, to a committee of privileges. That was the course pursued in the case of Pomfret, in the time of James the 1st. In that case it was decided, that the proper course to be pursued was, to refer mat-
120
ters of disputed election to an election committee. He knew nothing of the parties in this case; but he must say, that an election committee would be the only tribunal in which justice could be done, and an opportunity given of defending the return complained of, and shewing that it was legal, and one which the House ought to adopt. The learned member had found a precedent for the course he recommended in the time of William and Mary, about the year 1690. At that time the House exercised a jurisdiction over returns, and felt no hesitation whatever at acting, if a clear case was brought before it, without the aid of a committee. But the object of the Grenville act was, that in no case the House should act of itself. The greatest danger would arise from the House exercising such a power: and even if it were to assume the jurisdiction, it would not proceed to exercise it, without first referring the matter to a committee of precedents. There were several cases on the subject, but he would not then go into them, as he thought there was but one in which the House interfered with a return to which the sheriff was no party. There was, however, one case which bore a strong analogy to the present: it was that of the borough of Liskeard. There the party to whom the precept was issued by the sheriff made a regular return, and another return was made by other parties. The one return was under the regular seal of the corporation, while the other was without that requisite, and under the seals of parties to whom no precept was issued. There could be no doubt of the irregularity of the latter return, but still he was of opinion, that to interfere in the manner required by the hon. mover, in the present instance, would be improper, and the more so, because it could be decided by an election petition. It could not be done without the examination of evidence at the bar of the House; and it would be unusual and inconvenient to examine and cross-examine a number of persons at that bar. By the election laws there was a committee expressly appointed to try the merits of election petitions and returns. In the case of the city of Westminster, in 1784, the high bailiff made a return, not of certain persons to sit in that House, but that certain candidates had such and such a number of voles. Against that return Mr. Fox petitioned, and the House decided, that they could take no cognizance

121
of it, because they could only come to a decision upon a return, but in that case there was no return at all. The House there felt a difficulty as to how it should act, and an act was immediately passed, giving the House power to decide on petitions in cases where there had been no return. There were no grounds upon which the House could proceed to do what was required of them. There were a number of facts no doubt stated; but it would be much better to refer the case to an election committee, which had power to examine witnesses upon oath. In that case the House, if there were any breach of duty, either on the part of the sheriff, the returning officer, or the clerk of the Crown, could visit it upon the party offending, or the aggrieved party might have his remedy by action, against whoever was in fault. The House ought certainly, as far as possible, to discourage double returns; because, of the two persons returned neither could act, and the place which they both sought to represent was literally without a representative so long as the case was undecided. For these reasons, he must object to the motion, and he entreated the House to pause before they consented to a proceeding which might form a precedent capable of leading to considerable mischief.
Mr. Lockhartwas not disposed to concur fully with the hon. and learned mover, although he certainly had not heard anything from the right hon. gentleman to affect his statement. He thought the House ought to exercise its utmost vigilance to guard against fictitious returns. Suppose, for instance, that in some of the boroughs or popular places of England, where persons voted by scot and lot, some person on the part of the scot and lot voters assumed to officiate as the returning officer, and that his return was forwarded to the sheriff, and accompanied the writ to the clerk of the Crown's office; great difficulty might arise from setting aside such a return. He, therefore, thought it necessary to adopt some measure to provide against the inconvenience that might arise from undue returns in such a case, or in a case similar to the present. When it was considered what expense arose from prosecuting petitions in cases of controverted elections, every precaution should be taken to prevent fictitious returns. He would support a motion that went to effect such an object.
Mr. Broughamdiffered entirely from the right hon. gentleman in the observation, that an acquiescence in the present motion would infringe upon the Grenville act. The right hon. gentleman was not more disposed than he himself was, to bestow hearty commendation upon that act, than which no one more wise or virtuous had ever been framed by that or any other assembly. For what was the object of that act? It was to make a voluntary surrender, on the part of this branch of the legislature, of a jurisdiction which it found itself not capable of wisely and impartially exercising. So far, therefore, as the Grenville act went to take from that House, in its collective capacity, the right of determining upon cases of controverted elections, and to refer such cases to a more satisfactory tribunal, it had his approval. But this provision for a competent tribunal to decide upon such cases, did not go to take away from parliament the right and power of self-defence and protection, in the event of circumstances totally unconnected with those under which that act was originally passed. Did his hon. and learned friend propose, that that act should, in this particular case, be infringed on, or did he propose that inquiry and examination should be abandoned, where investigation could be attended with advantage? No such thing. There was here no necessity for such inquiry; for the decision was to be formed on an inspection of the returns themselves. They were both before them. It was unnecessary to examine into the details of the election; for there were documents before the House which, without reference to such details, would enable them to come to a decision. Here were two returns. In one, the indenture was annexed to the writ by the sheriff; in the other, it was not. In the one all the necessary forms were complied with; in the other, they were not. The question for the House to determine was, which of these returns the House should adopt? Witnesses were not necessary. They had the evidence of their own senses to regulate them in the course most proper to pursue. The case of the election of Liskeard had been adverted to; but, in his opinion, the cases were by no means analogous. Even in that case he had the high constitutional authority of Mr. Pitt to support him in the opinion, that that case did not fall within the Grenville act, and that the

123
House went too far, when they referred it. to a committee, and neglected to decide upon it themselves immediately. But if that was a case which called for the interference of the House, how much more strongly did the present do so? For there was this difference between these cases, that in the case of Liskeard both returns were annexed to the writ, but in the present there was only one; and it was therefore more imperative on the House to come to a decision. The two cases were toto cælo different. The most satisfactory test of the validity of the return was, that of its being annexed to the writ. If such a practice as that now complained of was permitted, it would be competent for any person who might wish to prevent the properly elected members from sitting for any place for some months after the election, to send returns to the sheriff; who, for his own security, would probably forward them to the Crown-office, and thus the duly elected members would for a time be debarred from sitting. By such means, it would be competent for him, with two hundred pieces of paper forwarded to the sheriff, and by the sheriff transmitted to the Crown-office, to embarrass the returns of two hundred members; and he owned there were times in that House, when he would be glad that he could perform some operation that could effect such a reduction of members [a laugh]. However desirous be or any other person might be, to possess the power of making such fictitious returns, he thought that that capability in him, or in any other person, would very inadequately compensate for the mischief arising from making mock returns to that House. Among the many other disadvantages which the return of which the present motion complained was, that it was not made until four days after the correct return. The motion of his learned friend did not go to deprive any party of a right which they might suppose they were entitled to; it only went to declare which of the returns, upon the evidence of the returns themselves, was the one that that House ought to sanction and approve of. It did not deprive any party of the opportunity of petitioning against it, or of adopting any ulterior measure they might think proper.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that nothing was further from his intention than to take any part in this discussion, nor was he aware of its nature until he had entered the
124
House; but having been concerned in the Liskeard case, he felt it necessary to say a few words, in reference to the proceedings on that occasion. He was proposed as a candidate, and a majority of votes tendered for him. For the other candidates, votes were also tendered, many of which were rejected. The agent of the other party procured a piece of parchment, to which he obtained the signatures of several persons who were rejected voters, and that parchment was received by the under sheriff, and by him attached to the precept. It was contended in the House, that it was a case not necessary to be referred to an election committee, and the general consideration of it was as it had been represented by the learned gentleman. What the circumstances which accompanied that case had to do with the present question, was for the House to determine. There was no double return. There was no return at all, or any thing partaking of that character. The distinction between it and the present case was, that the matter was then determined by a simple inspection of the document; but here there were two returns; each of them pretending to be a return. It appeared to him that this case could not, like the former, be decided by a simple inspection of the returns. It was not competent for him to say how far the clerk of the Crown was, in the present case, in fault, but he was certain, that officer would be able satisfactorily to account for his conduct. Whether the question was similar to the former, was for the House to decide. All he knew was, that he had been, in that instance, kept for some time out of his seat.
Mr. Abercrombywished to explain that nothing could be taken as a return to the king's writ, except the return made by the sheriff to the Crown-office, and by the officer of the Crown to the House. There was the book on the table, stating that one return was annexed to the precept, and annexed by the sheriff to the writ; and also stating, that the other return was not annexed to the precept or to the writ, as well as that it was not regularly received, in point of time. From the manner in which the entry was made no further evidence was necessary for the House to decide the question.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had never contended that any return should be received by the House, except such as had been made through the sheriff; nor did he think the

125
House would treat that as a return which had not been regularly annexed to the writ. He only contended, that it would not be safe for the House to decide at once without any inquiry.
Mr. Horace Twissthought the House ought to decide from the documents before them. If they went out of those documents, they would travel out of the record.
Mr. Carterthought the House had no power to alter the return made by the sheriff, except it was decided by a competent tribunal that he had acted corruptly or illegally. He thought, therefore, that the book on their table was quite sufficient to decide the case. The second return, it was clear, was never mentioned as a return by the sheriff himself.
Mr. D. Gilbertthought the whole question was, whether the second return could be called a legal return. In his opinion, it was no return at all, though he did not think that any blame was attributable to the sheriff.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he must make a confession, and take to himself whatever shame attached to it; namely, that he was ignorant of the course which ought to be pursued in this case, and if called on to vote, he must oppose the motion; because, in his present state of information on the subject, he was unwilling to assent to a vote which would decide it all at once and for ever. He was not prepared to go the whole length with the hon. and learned gentleman in saying that want of annexation to the writ constituted a nullity. If that were so, undoubtedly the learned gentleman's case would be a very strong one. However, as it would be better to decide by precedents, and as this would decide future cases, he would suggest the propriety of adjourning the question for further discussion, when they would come better prepared to give it that attention which its importance required. He had at first thought that it would be better to call the clerk of the Crown to the bar, to give explanation, if necessary; but on consideration, bethought, that might be deciding the case at one side. He would move, that the debate be adjourned to Wednesday, and that the clerk of the Crown be ordered to be in attendance.— Agreed to.

CORN IMPORTATION ACTS—ORDER IN COUNCIL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Corn Impor-
126
tation acts, to which the Order in Council of the 1st of September was referred,
Mr. Huskissonaddressed the committee. He began by observing, that as the Orders in Council for the opening of the ports for the admission of oats, oatmeal, peas, beans, and rye, which had just been referred to the committee, was issued, not only without the authority of law, but in direct contravention of existing statutes, and as his Majesty had called parliament together at this time chiefly for the purpose of having that order submitted for their consideration, he thus took the earliest opportunity of submitting to the House the grounds on which his Majesty had been advised to issue that order. This was a duty which ministers owed to parliament, to the country, and to themselves; and if it should be the pleasure of the legislature to grant them the indemnity for which they sued, so far from its becoming a dangerous precedent, it would rather tend to strengthen and confirm the precise bounds by which the different authorities in the state were limited. They owed it also to themselves to seek the indemnity of parliament, as they would otherwise be subject to certain legal consequences for having so advised the Crown; and they likewise owed it to those subordinate officers who acted under their orders in opening the ports. The date of the Order in Council was the 1st of September. At that time most of the members of parliament were resident in the country, and had opportunities, in their several districts, of observing the state of the harvest. That circumstance would render it the less necessary for him to go into any lengthened statement, on the present occasion; and he was certain the recollection of those members would bear him out in the assertion, that never was there a period when the reports from the different parts of the country so entirely concurred as to the harvest, and he hoped that those reports would be sufficient to justify ministers in the course they had pursued. With respect to the state of the crops at that time, he would say first, that wheat, taken as a whole, was deficient in quantity and quality; and the quality of course affected the value of the quantity. Barley, on the whole, would not make more than about two thirds of an average crop. Oats were generally deficient, and beans and peas much more so; and such had been the appearance of those crops in the ground, that in the month of

127
July the prices were rapidly rising. About the middle of June, when the price ought to be at the highest, as the old stock would at that time be nearly exhausted, the average price was 22 s. 11 d. On the 4th of August, taking the average of the whole kingdom, it had risen to 27 s. 3d., and had considerably exceeded that price in many districts. The House were aware that the two weeks from that date were the only weeks which were left to be included in the general quarterly average. The last of those two weeks it had risen s. 6d. above that price, at which, if it were the general average of the quarter, the ports would be open for the importation of foreign oats. With this information as to the general deficiency of the crop, and the consequent apprehended scarcity, they waited to see what would be the price in the two remaining weeks. In the week ending the 18th, the general average price was 28 s. 2d.; in that ending the 25th, it was 29 s. 4d.; and in the last days of the month it rose above 30 s. On the 1st of September it was 30 s. 7d., and was continuing to rise rapidly. The committee would bear in mind, that in several districts where oatmeal, and not flour, constituted a very large proportion of the food of the people, its price rose very much above that which had been quoted as the general average. Besides the knowledge of these facts, his Majesty's ministers had also the information, that the crop of oats was in general a failure in several foreign countries from which oats were usually imported. Knowing this, and seeing that great scarcity was to be apprehended at home, not merely from the deficiency of the oat crop, but from the general failure of leguminous productions throughout the country, owing to the great drought which prevailed, it became necessary to take steps to obtain a timely supply of food, not merely for the cattle, but for that large portion of the people who were dependent on oatmeal for food. But another circumstance which operated on his Majesty's ministers was, that the accounts from Lancashire and from Ireland were of such an alarming nature, as almost to excite despair; and if the drought had continued, if Providence had not lent its aid by a timely fall of rain, the potatoe crops must have been ruined. In that case, they would have had to fall back on the scanty supply of oats which, remained, and must have found themselves in a state of the utmost distress
128
for a supply of food for the great mass of the people. During the whole of his experience, never did the country appear in a situation more alarming. To add to the grounds of apprehension, the hay crop, in the richest parts of England, was in a condition to call forth fears of the utmost scarcity, and the fact was, that at the season of the year in question, such was the miserable state of vegetation, that it was absolutely necessary to feed cattle with green fodder, as in the depth of winter. In such a condition of the country, with such prospects, could there be the slightest hesitation in taking any step that might be requisite for securing to the country a supply of the first necessary of existence? Could his Majesty's ministers, for a single moment, entertain a doubt that their first duty was, at whatever risk, to guard against the impending scarcity, by the admission of peas, beans, and grain? The statements he had made, verified as they must have been by the observation of hon. gentlemen, fully warranted him in asserting that had ministers waited till the 15th of November, when by law the ports might have been opened, the consequences would probably have proved most calamitous. From the rapid rise of prices before the first of September, their continued elevation subsequent to that period, the condition of the crops at home, and the prospects of supply from abroad, he had not the slightest difficulty in saying, that the minister who should hesitate to advise the admission of foreign grain, would be unworthy equally of the favour of the monarch, and of that fair and liberal confidence which was reposed in the ministers of the Crown, while parliament was not sitting. He put it to the committee, whether it could for a moment bethought, that any minister deserved to be trusted by the Crown, or supported by parliament, who could for a single instant hesitate to choose between a breach of the law on the one hand, or the risk, nay the certainty, of famine on the other. Having submitted to the committee these observations, he trusted he had said enough to justify the measure that had been adopted, so far as it related to removing the prohibition, which would have excluded grain until the 15th of November, and he would have contented himself with having said thus much, had that measure been confined to simple removal; but there was another feature of the case which required notice. He al-

129
luded to the duty to be imposed on the grain admitted, or rather, he should say, undertaken to be paid thereon. The advisers of the Crown, on this occasion, had departed as little as possible from the spirit of the existing Corn-laws. They required the parties importing to pay certain duties; that is, the order in council imposed upon the importers the necessity of entering into an engagement to pay a specified duty, provided that duty should be sanctioned by parliament; and, in pursuance thereof, bonds had been entered into. Therefore, the act necessary to be passed on the present occasion, should not merely indemnify the parties who incurred this responsibility, but should, if parliament took the view of the subject which he did, empower the Crown to recover those duties. Honourable gentlemen might differ as to the amount of duty to be imposed. The principles upon which ministers had acted in settling these duties, he would now explain. It was enacted already, that if the price of oats was above 28 s. the duty was to be two shillings permanently, and two shillings additional for the first three months.
It must be obvious, that the only intention for which the additional duty of two shillings had been imposed for the first three months was, to check the amount imported, lest it should exceed the wants of the country, and thus be injurious to the home-grower. If they had taken a right estimate of the harvest of the year, such a check would have been deemed unnecessary. The whole oat crop had hardly exceeded one half of an average crop. Instead, therefore, of checking the importation of this, species of corn, ministers were called upon to give encouragement to the largest importation. On the 8th of September, the average price of the whole kingdom exceeded 30 s. a quarter; on the 5th of August it had exceeded 30 s. 4d. in not less than six districts. If no foreign corn had been introduced into the country until the 15th of November, the time at which it might have been imported by law, it was impossible to conceive that the price would not have gone on rapidly increasing, until by the 15th of November, the return would have been very considerably above the legal importation price.— On the subject of the amount of the duty, he would observe, that he thought it should not have exceeded 2s.; for had 4s. been imposed, there could have been but
130
little doubt that the importers would have waited until the 15th of November, and taken their chance of being then able to introduce it at the nominal duty of 4d. per quarter. In confirmation of this, he would observe, that of the quantity imported, 600,000 quarters of wheat, 150,000 were actually overheld, the owners declining to pay the duty of 2s., and rather desiring to take their chance on the 15th of November. In the last week, the prices were 29 s. and 30 s., in thirteen or fourteen counties out of the twenty-four, from which he had received reports; and these reports, he could inform the committee, were from counties where the great mass of the population were, in a considerable degree, dependent on oats for their food; amongst which might be included Durham, Cumberland, Northumberland, Chester, Gloucester, and Lancashire, and a few others. In Lancashire the price was 35 s.; affording another strong proof of the necessity there was for opening the ports, and of obtaining a supply of that article. Under all these circumstances, he trusted he had made out a case to justify ministers in taking off the prohibition, and in securing the country from the dangers by which it was threatened—dangers, from which, he trusted, the decision of the House would encourage the advisers of the Crown, at all times, to guard the country. What, in addition to the indemnity, he intended to conclude with proposing to the committee was, that the duty specified in the order in council should continue till the 15th February, when the next averages would be struck, and, in the mean time, that corn should be permitted to be introduced on the payment of that duty, as it had been done since the issue of the order in council. When the committee looked at the price of grain generally, and of wheat in particular—when they considered the scarcity of food for cattle, and for the great mass of the population—they would, he was satisfied, concur with him in thinking, that not only had a sound discretion been exercised as to the past, but that a continuation of the system would be highly expedient. H e would conclude by moving,
"1. That all persons concerned in issuing, or advising the issue, or acting in execution of, an Order of Council of the 1st day of February, 1826, for allowing the importation of certain sorts of foreign corn, shall be indemnified.

131
"2. That the importation of foreign oats, oatmeal, rye, pease, and beans, be permitted for a time to be limited, on payment of the duties hereinafter mentioned: that is to say, for every quarter of oats 2s.; for every boll of oatmeal 2s. 2d.; for every quarter of rye, pease, and beans, 3s. 6d.; and that all bonds which may have been taken for the payment of such duties shall be duly discharged."
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that in looking at the situation in which the country was placed at the period alluded to, his Majesty's ministers were perfectly justified in the course they had adopted. This was his own opinion, and it was also the opinion of many gentlemen with whom he concurred in the general view of the Corn-laws. But, in saying this, he begged not to be understood as meaning to retract any thing he had formerly said with respect to that question. His sentiments remained unaltered on that subject; but he thought the case now before the committee formed no part of that general question. He was ready to admit, that a sufficient case had been made out for the measure adopted by ministers. In expressing that, he believed that he only spoke the feelings of the landed interest. He would go further, and say, that he only spoke their sentiments in declaring, that all the country gentlemen were greatly indebted to ministers for that which they had done. He made this observation, because it was asserted, most unjustly, that the landed interest were the only persons who differed from public opinion upon this most important subject. He knew it was a principle generally admitted among persons concerned in commerce, that, after any unusual depression, they were at liberty to seek for a remuneration of their losses in advanced prices. That was, as he understood, a general principle in trade and manufactures, and it was not at all unfair. But it was not applicable, at all times, to the agricultural interest. That interest had been as depressed as any class in the kingdom, and no good could result from exciting jealousy between them and the manufacturers. The best remedy for the evils of the country was to look them fairly in the face, and not to enter into any recrimination between the different classes of society. When the great question came under consideration, he hoped the House would not be told that landlords were oppressive, and
132
exacted rents that their tenants could not pay. He trusted, that all declamation addressed to the passions of the people would be avoided, and that the question would be discussed without any mixture of prejudice. He did not think this a proper time for entering upon the question of the Corn-laws, and he was glad that ministers had confined themselves to the immediate question before the House.
Mr. Whitmoredid not rise to oppose the measure now under consideration. He believed it was the only course ministers could have pursued. But it was most desirable, without now attempting to enter on the merits of the great question of the Corn-laws, that an early settlement of it should take place. He could not help pointing out to the House the strange nature of the law by which the corn trade was to have been regulated. They were now deliberating upon the third instance of its infraction within the last three years. Could a heavier censure fall upon any law than that simple fact? They passed a law which suffered repeated infractions from the executive government: they were suddenly convened to consider of the infraction, and they all felt satisfied that the breach of the law was the only safe conduct which government could adopt. The year before last they adopted resolutions in direct contradiction to this law: they did the same last year: and now they were assembled to pass an act of indemnity to ministers for breaking through it. He put it to the House, if such a law ought any longer to disgrace the Statute-book. He was prepared to show, at the proper time, that it was not only in hostility to the general prosperity of the country, but that it acted most injuriously on that interest for whose benefit it had been enacted. He concurred with the hon. baronet in hoping, that no recrimination or angry feelings would be allowed to mix themselves up with the consideration of this question. It was one of vast importance to all interests, affecting, as it did, not only the prosperity of the agricultural, but the manufacturing and trading classes. It was likewise a question of great difficulty, which it became all to approach with calmness; and he trusted, the passions and interests of individuals would not be mixed up in a matter so intimately affecting the universal safety and well-being of the state. With respect to the recent act of ministers, it

133
was one forced on them by circumstances, and of which the strongest advocates of the existing system did not venture to complain.
Colonel Woodwished the hon. gentleman had followed the example of the hon. baronet who preceded him, and refrained from any animadversion on the Corn-law. As he had made many allusions to it on different 6ccaskms, it would have been well if the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to ascertain what that law was. Among the various publications which had appeared upon it, he had perused one which had been put forth by the hon. gentleman. In that pamphlet he found it asserted, that the principle of the law of 1815 was, to cut off all intercourse, as to the trade in grain, with foreign countries; that the trade in corn was rendered, by that law, the exception, and not the rule; and that the object of it was, to screw up the prices at home to an unnatural elevation. Now, so far was the trade in corn made the rule of the law in 1815—so far was it from being made the exception, that it was established, that when the averages were at 63 s. and under, the import duty should be 25 s., and when above 63 s., then the import duty was to be only 2s. 6d. He would leave it, then, to the House to determine, how just had been the assertion of the hon. gentleman, that the object of the law and its effect had been to cut off all intercourse in foreign grain. He begged the committee to look at the three resolutions then passed; the first of which declared, that all corn, come from where it would, should be landed and housed for exportation duty free; and that it should be exported also duty free. He noticed this to show how necessary it was for those who undertook to write upon any law, first of all to understand it. This most valuable regulation they owed to the late Mr. Rose; and the declared object of it was, that whether the country was engaged in war on her own account, or remained neutral in the wars of other countries, there should still be a resource for times of difficulty, in the importation of foreign grain; that the factors of the Baltic might be induced, as it were, to transport their warehouses from Dantzic to our own shores. So much for the design of cutting off all trade in grain. Now, as to the second argument, that of screwing up prices. This was a charge made by the hon. gentleman.
134
This had been a subject upon which the press had been incessantly at work for six months, and such was the misrepresentation to which they had recourse to bring down the Corn-law. The arrangement made by that law went to give the home-growers a remunerating price, and the command of the home-market, while enough grain was produced to feed the whole population; and the average price had been, during five or six years past, not 80 s., as it had been assumed by the opponents of that time, but 60 s. The price of bread for four or five years past had not been complained of nor could it be complained of. As to the measure now under consideration, he agreed, that there was not the slightest objection to the step taken by government, in opening the ports on their own responsibility. There was one thing which he did not exactly understand in the statement of the right hon. gentleman. He did not know, as oats had risen to 30 s. at the time of publishing these orders in council, why the ports had not been opened at once at the duty of 4s. Again, as on the 15th of November about the time of striking the averages, the ports had been opened till forty days after the opening of parliament, were they to remain open, as under the operation of the law in opening them they would have been, till February, the next period for striking the averages? Upon that question depended another; namely, whether there was any necessity for passing this bill of indemnity now, or whether it could not have been as well done in February? He deprecated the aggravating attempts of the press to dissever the manufacturing and agricultural interests, and hoped that the House would adopt measures which would have the effect of putting a stop to them.
Mr. Warburton,member for Bridport, expressed a hope, that the intimation thrown out by the Foreign Secretary of State would be rigidly adhered to, and that any measure relative to an alteration of the Corn-laws would be brought forward in that House without any previous intimation elsewhere; so that every member would come equally unprepared and equally unprejudiced to the discussion of this important subject.
Colonel Torrens, member for Ipswich, said, he was aware it was irregular to allude to any discussion which had taken place in that House on a previous occa-

135
sion, but he might, perhaps, be allowed to assume that, at another time, no matter when, and in a certain place, no matter where, an hon. gentleman had used expressions something similar to the following:—that the traders and manufacturers were seeking to convert themselves into lords and gentlemen, by turning lords and gentlemen, into beggars. Now, if he had heard any such expressions used by any gentleman, he should immediately conclude, that the party so using them deserved to be ranked among the exclusive advocates of the landed interests. For himself, he must object to any attempt to sever the feelings and interests of one class of subjects from those of another. All the great interests were so united and bound together in interests, that they could not elevate one for any length of time but at the expense of the other. He considered the value of land as the true barometer of national opulence. He rejoiced to see that value increased, because it indicated national prosperity. The difference between the agricultural gentlemen and himself was, that he would surround it by a natural and congenial atmosphere of national wealth, while they were anxious occasionally to make the mercury ascend in the scale, and to preserve its precarious elevation by an artificial pressure. If the prices of land should, by these means, be brought so high as to raise the prices of grain and cattle much beyond the level of the European markets, capital would emigrate to more happy climes, and leave the agriculturist to lament over the desolation which he had brought upon himself. It would not be the pulling down alone of the trade and manufactures, but it would resemble the last effort of despairing frenzy, which would drag down the pillars of the temple, and bury itself in the ruins.
Mr. Westernsaid, he considered that ministers were justified in the course they had pursued, and that, seeing the temper and feeling of the House, he would not at present enter into the general question of the Corn-laws.
Mr. Wodehouseconcurred with the last speaker in approving of the conduct of ministers. It was his intention to have gone more at large into the general question of the Corn-laws, but, observing the temper and disposition of the House on the subject, he forbore doing so for the present.
Mr. Calcraftthought that ministers could not have acted otherwise than they had done. He would not anticipate the general discussion. He was one of those, who felt great inconvenience at the postponement of the question; yet he could discover many good reasons for that postponement. He approved, therefore, of the determination of government to promulgate nothing until after the holydays. He advised every member to use his best endeavours to allay animosities, and abstain from any observations, until the opportunity should arrive for a full and conclusive discussion of the subject.
Mr. Benettdeprecated the appointment of any more committees to examine into the operation of the Corn-laws. He conceived such a step to be utterly needless, after the mass of information which had been collected on the subject.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanobserved, that all the interests of the country were so closely connected, that any measure which tended to uphold one of them exclusively, was certain, in the long run, to be injurious to that very interest. In avowing himself friendly to some alteration in the Corn-laws, he did not consider himself to be seeking the advantage of his own constituents at the expense of any other class of the community. He fully agreed with an hon. gentleman who once represented the city of London, that he was not so much sent to parliament to guard the interests of the city, as to guard those of the country at large, and, indeed, he might say, of posterity. In conclusion, he would not compliment ministers on the policy which they had pursued with regard to this question, for he thought that if they had any feeling, they must be nauseated with the compliments they had received already. However, this much he would say, that they would have been highly criminal if they had abstained from acting as they had done.
Mr. Humeasserted, that, both in the House and out of it, there was a unanimous opinion, that the question of the Corn-laws ought to undergo immediate discussion. Such being the case, the conduct of ministers appeared very extraordinary. There were hundreds of petitions to be presented from the manufacturing districts against those laws; and no gentleman would perform his duty in presenting them, if he did not state fully the nature of their contents. Discussion

137
would thereby arise upon the subject daily; and the certainty that it would do so ought to induce ministers to assign a reason for wishing to avoid it. If they expected farther information on the subject, the avowal of such expectation would be a fair reason for postponing the discussion of it; but if they did not, they were not consulting the wishes of the country in not proceeding with it immediately. They had heard much of the interest of the manufacturer, and of the agriculturist, but there was one interest of which they had not heard one word of, and that was the interest of the people.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE—MR. BROGDEN.
On the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee of supply,
Mr. Brogdenaddressed the House. He said, that he had now had the honour of filling the important and honourable situation of Chairman of the Committees of the House for nearly two whole parliaments; and he was not conscious of having done any act, during that period, which was either dishonourable in itself or derogatory from the situation which he filled in that House and in society at large. Within the few last months, however, he had been assailed by public and private calumnies, the most unjustifiable and unfounded. He had rebutted those calumnies as far as was in his power; but they were still circulated to his disadvantage, in consequence of the prejudices which had been excited against him. He was happy, however, in having it in his power to say, that from those who knew him best, he had received, not blame, but thanks; he had met, not with accusation, but applause; whilst, on the other hand, he was sorry to say, that among the public at large his character had been torn from him by anonymous publications of the most scandalous and virulent description. He would venture to affirm, that there was no gentleman on either side of the House, let his politics be what they might, who had investigated the merits of his case, and possessed sufficient knowledge of it to decide on the accusations which had been preferred against him. In such a condition, though he felt himself perfectly guiltless, he could not think of presenting himself as a candidate for the office which he had filled in the two last parliaments, until he had removed the
138
calumnies which had been propagated against him [loud cheers]. He was sure that the House would do him justice when an inquiry into the charges against him should be instituted, and that it would, in the mean time, appreciate the motives which induced him to act as he then acted. All that he would say further was, that he was guiltless of all fraud, and that he wished the transaction alluded to by the hon. alderman who had brought it before the House to be fully investigated. At present, he bowed before the storm which had been excited against him; but he was convinced that fair weather would soon return, and that his character would shine with undiminished brightness in spite of the clouds which now obscured it. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House. On former occasions he had often received its indulgence: all that he now asked for was its justice. In conclusion he challenged the worthy alderman, who had been the first to assail his character, to give him a speedy opportunity of vindicating it from the charges which he had brought against it.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he was sure that only one impression could have been generated in the House by the address which the hon. gentleman had delivered— an address which was as creditable to that hon. gentleman's sense of what was due to himself, as it was consonant to the honour of the House, and to the feelings of those whose duty it was to suggest a fit person to fill the chair of the committees. For his own part, he felt that the House, although it might avail itself of the hon. member's determination to withdraw himself at present from the chair, which he had filled with so much credit to himself and advantage to the public business— and he could assure it, that he did not intend to propose the hon. gentleman for its chairman, after what he had just said,— he felt, he repeated, that the House, if the hon. gentleman came out of the inquiry which he had challenged, free from moral taint, would be sorry to make any arrangement which would preclude him from again filling that situation. At the same time, he must observe, that if it had been possible—if it had been either respectful to the House, or kind to the individual— to press him against his own disclaimer, he should have been reluctant to place the hon. member at present in the chair, because he felt that a thousand opportunities

139
during the ordinary business of parliament might arise, in which the vague rumours, which had necessarily reached the ears of every member in the House, might prove impediments to the progress of business, and matter of unpleasantness to the hon. member himself. The course which the hon. member had taken was, in his opinion, manly, wise, and honourable. He was confident that the hon. alderman who had menaced that hon. member—and he did not use the word "menaced" in an offensive sense—perhaps he ought rather to have said, who had given that hon. member notice of his intention to oppose his re-election to the office of chairman of the committees of the House, would feel himself bound to give him as early as possible the opportunity which he sought of exculpating his character. Until that exculpation was complete, he should not deem it respectful to the House to propose to place the hon. member in that situation, which he could not fill to the public advantage, unless he took it free from all moral taint. When the proper opportunity arrived, he should propose as chairman, pro tempore, another hon. gentleman, who had long been a member of the House, who was conversant with its forms and modes of transacting business, and whom he could venture to recommend to their notice as a man of unblemished honour. He would also say this of that gentleman, that though the chairmanship of their committees would be to him, as it must be to every member, an object of honourable ambition, he would be more happy in restoring it to its ancient possessor, free from all reproach, than he would be in holding it himself, whilst that gentleman was labouring, unjustly, under the obloquy of the public.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he felt himself in as painful a situation—indeed he might say, in a more painful situation —than he had ever before felt in addressing a public assembly. He wished it to be distinctly understood by the House, that he did not come forward as the accuser of the hon. gentleman. With regard to the transactions which he had brought before it, and which the hon. member had acknowledged to be fraudulent, the hon. member said that he knew nothing. He gave the hon. member credit for that assertion; and he now informed the House, that it was not upon that ground alone that he opposed the re-elec-
140
tion of the hon. member to the situation of chairman of the committees of the House. He had seen so much of the gambling speculations which had recently disgraced and exhausted the country—he knew so much of the manner in which they were concocted and subsequently managed—that he considered it derogatory from the honour of the House to have any man connected with so many of them, as the hon. member was, placed in the respectable situation of chairman of their committees. "Indeed," continued the hon. alderman, "had it been possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to have been connected as the hon. member is with numbers of these joint-stock companies, I should have felt it to be my duty, upon public grounds, to have made the same objection to your re-election to the office which you now so honourably fill, as I ventured to say that I should make to the re-election of the hon. member to the post which he filled in the last parliament." He declared that he should not have said a word bearing upon the hon. member, had not the lion, member been likely to be again called to the situation which he had twice before had the honour of filling; and though he might have felt it his duty to have brought the whole of the joint-stock companies under the notice of parliament, he should not have placed the hon. member's connexion with them under its consideration, unless it had arisen naturally out of the investigation. He knew that many hon. members of that House had lent their names to those speculations; and that by so doing they had inflicted considerable mischief on unsuspecting individuals, though they had had no participation in the fraudulent gains. If such an inquiry as he proposed should take place, he trusted that the House (even though some hon. members of it should be implicated by it, and should be proved to have extracted money out of the pockets of the people, by raising the price of shares by unfair and dishonourable artifices) would do its duty to the country, and would institute a rigid investigation into every circumstance connected with the subject. It might perhaps be asked, why he had put himself so prominently forward on this occasion. He could give many reasons; but one should suffice. It was his fortune to be placed in a high and dignified situation in the year 1824, when this mania was at its height. He was at that time

141
lord mayor of London, and in consequence, had numberless applications from the various parties in getting up the bubbles, to give his sanction to them. He believed that by putting his name to those applications he might have put thousands of pounds in his pocket. He saw, however, through the views of the parties who applied to him: he saw the mischief which their schemes were certain to produce; and he determined to enter his protest against them. It was, perhaps, that very determination which induced him to watch the progress of those bubbles more narrowly than he otherwise should have done; and the knowledge which he acquired by so watching them, convinced him of the necessity of entering into an investigation of their nature, in case the hon. member, or any other gentleman, connected with equal numbers of them, should aspire to the chairmanship of the committees of that House, in order to enable the House to decide whether they were or were not qualified to perform its functions. He thought it right to observe here, once for all, that he had no sort of personal ill will to the hon. member. He had known him many years: he had had some commercial dealings with him; and from the time when his acquaintance commenced with the hon. member down to the present moment, he had never had any ground to complain of him as a man of honour. He felt it his duty, however, on public grounds, to bring the subject before the House. He had observed these gambling speculations from their commencement to their close: he had witnessed the ruin which they had diffused throughout the country: he had seen men of large property stripped of their all, and their names in the Gazette, owing to their dabbling in them; and he, therefore, thought, that a full examination ought to be instituted into them, not an examination confined to the hon. member, and letting others go free, but one which should embrace all who had become directors of these various companies. If the hon. member should be able to exonerate himself from the charges which had been publicly brought against him, he should be as well pleased as any of the hon. member's friends, and should not offer any opposition to his re-election to that chair, which the hon. member had filled with so much satisfaction.
The House having gone into the committee, Mr. Secretary Canning named sir
142
Alexander Grant, as chairman of committees. On taking the chair, sir A. Grant addressed the committee. He expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respecting the late chairman, and said that no man would be more rejoiced than himself to see him restored with honour to the situation which he had filled so ably in the two previous parliaments.