Sitting of 29 November 1826

DEISM—OATHS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE— PETITION OF ROBERT TAYLOR.
Sir. Humesaid, he had an important petition to present, in which the rights of a British subject, and the cause of civil and religious liberty, were deeply concerned. The right of which the petitioner complained he was deprived, was that enjoyment of religious freedom which it was consistent with the spirit and practice of the British constitution that every British subject should possess. The petitioner was Mr. Robert Taylor, who had been canonically ordained a clergyman of the established church. He was also a Bachelor of Arts of St. John's College, Cambridge. He stated in his petition, that after the most mature consideration, he could not give a conscientious credence to the doctrines of Christianity. That this was the result of a conscientious conviction on the part of the petitioner, was shewn by his having resigned a cure, which he held in a parish in Suffolk, in consequence of his sincere disbelief in the tenets of the established church. The petitioner further stated, that he arrived at that state of mind that he could conscientiously declare himself a Deist. He declared, that in various instances those who were of the same faith with him had experienced hardship and injury from being deprived of protection in courts of law, on account of the profession of Deism. This was the more a subject of just complaint, as under the act of Toleration they were entitled to protection, unless their mode of faith was opposed to morality, or was inimical to the interests of the state. The petitioner set forth an example of the hardship experienced by persons professing Deism, in the instance of a shopman of Mr. Carlile, who was prevented from prosecuting in a court of justice, in consequence of his adherence to the tenets of Deism—and because he
172
would not take an oath according to the forms of law. The hon. member proceeded to argue, that by a resolution of that House, unanimously passed in 1680, the acts of Elizabeth and of James did not extend to Protestant Dissenters, and that the enactments of the Penal laws were not to be put in force against them. Under these resolutions, in his opinion, the petitioner was entitled to protection, and to a freedom from the oppression of which he so justly complained. It was inconsistent to refuse the oath of a person who disbelieved in Christianity, and at the same time to receive, as appeared from proceedings in the court of Chancery, and from proceedings before the lord mayor, those of Hindoos, who were infidels, and who were sworn after the form of their faith, and after the manner of their country. The profession of a belief in God was surely sufficient for the purpose of taking an oath in a court of justice. He had himself seen the natives of India sworn on the head of a child, by the water of the Ganges, and on a variety of other forms, which were found to answer all the purposes of justice before British tribunals in India. Surely, if the evidence of a Pagan would be received in a court of law, while this gentleman's would be rejected, he had a right to say, that toleration in its full sense did not exist. The petition was respectfully worded. The petitioner fairly stated his grievance, and called upon the House to take his case into consideration, and cause that right to be extended to him to which he was entitled. Every man should be allowed to enjoy liberty of conscience uncontrolled by civil disability. It would be recollected what a struggle was made, at no very distant period, against the power of the Catholic church. History did not exhibit greater exertions made by any people, than were then made by the people of this country, to free themselves from the shackles of intolerance; and yet we now refused to extend toleration to others. He believed England was the only country in the world that placed a large portion of its population under restriction on account of their religious tenets; but he hoped the time would soon come when liberty of conscience, without civil disability, would be extended to all, whatever creed they might profess.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, he felt con-

173
siderable surprise, after what had fallen from the hon. gentleman last session, to find him presenting a petition like the present, and introducing it with a speech such as should never have been addressed to a British House of Commons. What could the hon. gentleman mean by comparing this petitioner and his sect to Protestant Dissenters? Had the hon. member ever read the Toleration act? The hon. member, however, had himself given an answer to that question, when he said that the shopman of Mr. Carlile would not allow himself to be sworn according to the established usage of the country. He contended, that infidels could not give evidence in courts of justice, and yet the hon. member himself furnished instances to the contrary when he said that a Jew or a Mahommedan might be sworn according to their respective creeds. The law of England sufficiently provided for the grievance of which the hon. member complained; for a man who conformed to the religious forms of any sect, however wild or preposterous, found protection in the law of the land, and his evidence was admitted. Many members of the House, who were also members of the legal profession, knew, from experience in courts of justice, that the oaths of such individuals were admitted. The oath was administered according to the particular creed of the individual who made it; but what form of oath could bind the man who openly, professed no creed at all? Would not the natural question be, do you believe in a future state, and in rewards and punishments hereafter?
Mr. Humehere intimated, that the petitioner did believe in a future state.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowcontinued. If the petitioner did not believe in a future state, what assurance had the country, that any form of oath would be binding upon him? If such a person presented himself to seek redress before a magistrate, and refused to comply with the form prescribed by the law of England, the magistrate must tell him, "then, Sir, I have no power to administer any other form of oath than that which the law points out." Such must be the reply in all similar cases. No magistrate could, and he hoped that no magistrate ever would, deviate from a rule that was founded in sound and constitutional principles.
Mr. Baileysaid, that as a member of
174
that House, although a very young one, he could not but rise up to oppose both the petition and the principles laid down by the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman said, that this petition was most respectfully worded; but he begged leave to contradict that assertion, and say, that it was most disrespectfully worded, from the allusions which it made; and he conceived, that a person who did not believe in our Saviour ought not to be tolerated in a British House of Commons. It was really astonishing that the hon. member was not interrupted in his speech, and an objection in limine taken to his arguments before they were suffered to proceed. The petitioner professed a disbelief in Christianity; in the being of our Saviour; and in those doctrines and tenets on which the best and highest hopes of the community rested. Jews and Mahometans were admitted to be sworn in courts of justice, and they were sworn according to the form of their respective faiths; but the Deist could give no such sanction to his oath, for he professed no settled form of worship.
Sir E. Carringtonexpressed his horror that any gentleman, educated in a Christian country, could be found to entertain the doctrine stated in the petition, and to claim a right to be sworn in courts of justice upon the Works of Nature. The fact was, that the case of the petitioner was not the case of Deism. He was sorry to say, it was nothing short of Atheism; for it attempted to set up the works of nature, in contradistinction to the works of the Deity. He had often, in the course, of his life, administered oaths to the Persian worshippers of fire, and to other idolaters in the East, who did not believe in Christianity, and he had done it by that form which they held binding; but certainly, nothing should induce him to administer an oath to a Deist, on what the petitioner was pleased to call the "works of nature."
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he rose for the purpose of bringing back the attention of the House to the real question before them; from which it appeared to him that they were in some degree departing. There were two questions arising out of this petition. The first was, whether it was proper to accede to the prayer of the petition; the second, whether it was proper to receive the petition. With respect to the first question, he certainly

175
had a strong opinion. He would not then state it; but, if ever the hon. gentleman should bring in a bill for the purpose of relieving any man in the situation of the petitioner from the obligation of an oath, he, for one, should be prepared to meet that hon. gentleman, and those hon. gentlemen by whom he might be supported, and to contend, that, for the preservation of the best rights, and the protection of the best interests of the community, such a bill ought to be decidedly rejected. But that was not the question now before the House; which was simply, whether or not the petition should be received. Now, he was not prepared to say that it would be wise to reject a petition because the House might not be disposed to accede to its prayer. Nor did he think it would be wise, on the present occasion, to attach so much importance to this petition as its rejection might involve. Whatever might be the feelings which the House laudably entertained on this subject, he thought it would be prudent on their part to restrain themselves from expressing themselves at the present moment with reference to question, which, although it had been mixed up with the other, was not actually before them.
Mr. W. Smithobserved, that the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Secretary afforded another proof o that prudence and moderation for which he had so much distinguished himself. He regretted that the right hon. gentleman had not, by speaking earlier in the discussion, set the example of those excellent qualities to the two honourable members who had spoken on his side. One of those hon. gentlemen wag, as yet, but a very young member, and no doubt, when he had more experience in that House, he would learn to discuss subjects with a little more temper. With respect to the other hon. member, he thought, that if he had practised as a judge in this country, as long as he had done abroad, he would have made a distinction between receiving a petition and complying with its request. He was sorry to find hon. members confounding the opinions of an Atheist with those of a Deist. He knew not that an Atheist could give any sanction to an oath; but he believed that a Deist could, and he had no hesitation in asserting, that the interests of justice were much more likely to suffer from the oath of a man who swore on the gospels, which he
176
did not believe, than from that of him who fairly stated that he denied the truth of the gospels, but, at the same time, firmly acknowledged the existence of a God.
Mr. Humeexpressed a wish that the petition should be read, in order to set the learned serjeant right as to the petitioner's belief.
The Petition was then brought up and read, as follows:—
"To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland assembled, the Petition of Robert Taylor, of Carey-street, Lincoln's-Inn, Clerk,
"Humbly showeth,
"That your petitioner has been ordained a Clergyman of the Established Church, is a Bachelor of Arts of St. John's College, Cambridge, and is a Member of the College of Surgeons.
"That your petitioner is Chaplain of a society called "The Universal Benevolent Society," which is in the habit of meeting every Tuesday evening, for the purpose of investigating the evidences of the Christian religion.
"That your petitioner has determined, after a most laborious investigation and philosophical research, that he cannot give credence to the Christian faith, and has seceded from it solely from motives of honour, conscience, and conviction, and not from obstinacy, singularity, or prejudice.
"That your petitioner is in the habit of performing Divine Service before the said society, upon every Sunday, upon the principles of Deism.
"That your petitioner has ascertained that he cannot give evidence in any Court, touching any matter, suit, or cause, depending therein, in consequence of his not believing in revelation, although your petitioner has carefully investigated its evidences, but cannot believe in its truth.
"That your petitioner considers, under the Act of Toleration, he is entitled to profess what religion he pleases, and publicly to propagate it, unless such religion be opposed to public morality and the welfare of the State.
"That your petitioner believes in the existence of a future state, and instils such belief into the minds of his hearers. That a short time ago a shopman of Mr. Carlile's was robbed of his watch, but was unable to prosecute the offender, in consequence of his adherence to the tenets of Deism,
"That your petitioner considers the law, as it now stands, is injurious to the fair and equal administration of justice, and is at variance with the interests of the State, inasmuch as it allows persons guilty of atrocious crimes to escape with impunity, and deprives your petitioner and others of justice.
"That your petitioner will consider an oath sworn on the Works of Nature as binding on his conscience, as one sworn by the Christian on the New Testament, the Jew on the Bible, or the Mahomedan on the Alcoran.
"Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays, that your Honourable House will be pleased to decree, that persons professing Deistical principles be sworn in courts of justice, as all persons professing Christianity, Judaism, and Mahomedanism; and that the degree of credit due to such shall, in all cases, be left to the consideration of the judge, jury, magistrate, or whatever tribunal by which such case shall be tried. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
Mr. Humeobserved, that the petition itself was a complete answer to the learned serjeant. With respect to the argument of the hon. gentleman under the gallery, against allowing a Deist to take an oath, he would ask that hon. gentleman what was a Jew, but a Deist? According to the hon. gentleman's principle, a Jew ought not to be allowed to be sworn. The argument of the hon. gentleman, therefore, was directed against the existing statutes. As to the hon. baronet, it really appeared to be very strange, that a gentleman who had for such a length of time, in Ceylon, been administering oaths to men who did not believe in the Christian revelation, should now say, that he would not believe a Deist on his oath. With respect to the introduction of any future measure on this subject, he did not intend to bring in any, but he confessed it was his opinion that some such measure ought to be introduced. He desired to see religious scruples respected by the House and the law of the land put on a liberal footing, in that respect. At one period England set an example of liberality to the world, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when she would again resume the lead, and not be as she was unhappily at present, rather following than guiding the spirit of the age.
The petition was ordered to lie on the
178
table. Mr. Hume then moved, that the petition be printed, in order that gentlemen should be acquainted with its objects. Mr. Robinson opposed it; and on the cry of "No, no," becoming general, Mr. Hume withdrew the motion.

TREGONY BOROUGH ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. Abercromby, the order of the day was read for resuming the adjourned debate, on the motion made on the 24th instant, "That the Indenture by which James Adam Gordon and James Mackillop, esquires, were returned to serve for the borough of Tregony be taken off the file,"
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that he held the present question to be of such serious consequence, that he could not allow it to pass without offering a few words to the consideration of the House. The present occasion brought to his memory the words of a once distinguished member of that House, Mr. Grenville, who had declared, that he looked upon every case of contested election, brought before the House of Commons, as a case of the utmost importance, in which the property and birth right of every subject of the realm were at stake, and in which it, therefore, behoved the House to act with the greatest caution. If he entertained this feeling upon all cases of election, he entertained it more strongly than ever in this particular instance, where the House was going to pass a judgment which would form a precedent in one of the most important parts of its jurisdiction. He was, therefore, much obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought the subject before the notice of the House, for the manner in which he had done so. At the time when the hon. and learned gentleman first brought it forward, he thought his argument particularly clear and convincing. In the interval which had elapsed between that time and the present, he had taken great pains to inform his mind upon the subject; and, though he still hoped that the House would assent to the proposition which the hon. and learned member had made to it, he did not think that there was so clear a case as to make it necessary to take proceedings against any other parties. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to review the points in which he considered the last return to be informal, and cited a great many cases on the subject, which

179
were so imperfectly heard in the gallery, that we cannot pretend to give a correct report of them.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could not offer his opinion upon this important subject without first expressing the great pleasure which he felt in finding that a subject so dry and tedious had attracted the attention of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. The talent and industry, of which the hon. gentleman had just given the House so striking a specimen, would, he had no doubt, be productive of great advantage to their discussions whenever the hon. gentleman should apply himself to a subject which admitted at once of research and display. He did not regret the time which the House had taken to come to a decision on this question; because it was one of great importance, and therefore, required mature deliberation. When it was first presented to their notice, he thought that the latter return could not be considered a valid return; and the consideration which he had since given to it, had satisfied him of the correctness of that opinion, and of the propriety of ordering that the indenture containing it should be taken off the file. He contended, that to follow any other course would be to furnish a precedent fraught with danger. The House was aware that in all election returns, a great responsibility was imposed on the sheriffs of counties. They were required to use their best discretion; the House being ready to give them every indulgence in cases where they used it honestly but erroneously, and to punish them whenever they used it partially and improperly. Now, the sure way for a sheriff to escape from a responsibility to which he ought to be liable was, to send up, besides the regular return annexed to the writ, another paper, not annexed to it, received from some other person than the regular returning officer, and then to leave the House to decide which of the returns was the proper return. He maintained, that the sheriff was bound, in all cases, to make either a single return or a double return to the writ, and no other. He was not prepared to say whether the sheriff might not make two returns annexed to the writ. It was, fortunately unnecessary to decide that question in this particular case, as the sheriff had declined to do so: and such being the case, he thought that the House was
180
bound to decide, that only one return had been made to the writ, and that the other indenture was invalid and of no effect. In the present case, the under-sheriff had not directed his writ to the mayor of Tregony. A doubt existed as to the validity of the claims of two different parties to that office. The under-sheriff selected one of them as returning officer: from that person he received the precept back again, with an indenture attached to it, and he returned that indenture, attached to the writ, to the Crown-office. The under-sheriff considered the return so made to be the proper return, and he (Mr. Peel) contended that the House ought to do the same. He attached no importance to the certificate which was received on a subsequent day. Indeed, he would not enter into that part of the question, but would treat the return as a single return, and would not examine whether the sheriff acted properly or not. If there was a dispute between two officers, as to which was the proper returning officer, it must be decided by the sheriff; and there might be cases in which it would be wiser for him to make a double than a single return. It was unnecessary to enter into an investigation of the precedents which had been quoted: for, in his opinion, none of them were at all applicable to the present case. The question was to be decided by common sense, and that due regard to the interests of justice which was felt by every man in that House. The safest plan upon which the House could act, was to admit no other return than a single return or a double return, and not to allow a sheriff to steer an intermediate course between the two. On that account, he for one should support the motion, which considered the second indenture as invalid, and should leave the parties mentioned in it to their remedy. He doubted whether the prudent course would not be to call in the Clerk of the Crown, to receive from him the originals, of which the entries in the books were copies, and to form their opinions upon inspection of the documents. If no objection should be made to this proposition, he would beg leave to substitute for the motion then before the House a motion to that effect; and then, if the entries appeared to be correct, as he had no doubt they would, he would move, that the return attached to the writ should be considered as a single return.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that if he were permitted to make one or two observations at this stage of the debate, they would, in all probability, save the time of the House from being unnecessarily wasted. The right hon. Secretary had rested the case on its proper grounds. The sheriff had a right to receive, or to reject, both returns made to him; but then he must annex them both to the writ, and must not venture upon any middle course. He had no difficulty in agreeing to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman; but he must say this on his own behalf, that the peculiar advantage of the course which he had suggested was, that, it did not strike at the Grenville act, but was content with the evidence upon the table, which was in its very nature conclusive. If it should be the pleasure of the House to call in the clerk of the Crown to produce the original returns, and if that measure, on their being found to agree with the entries in the book, should be followed up by another motion, acceding substantially to that which he had himself brought forward, he could have no objection to urge against such a mode of proceeding.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that if the original documents and the entries agreed, he should certainly follow up his present motion by another for taking off the file the second indenture.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he was anxious to explain how far he went along with the hon. and learned gentleman, and how far he differed from him on this important question. He put out of the way all observations on the manner of executing the return—on its being executed by the deputy mayor, and on its being executed by a different person from that to whom the precept was directed, because, if there was any validity in those observations, they ought to be received in the shape of a petition. The hon. gentleman who had done himself so much credit that evening by the research which he had displayed on the present abstract question, had adverted to a resolution of the House in which it was stated, that the House would look to the substance, and not to the form, of a return. Now, he would say at once, that, in the present instance, he did not think it necessary that the return should be annexed to the writ. It was true that the statute required that the returns for counties should be attached to the writ, but it said nothing of a similar nature with
182
regard to the returns for boroughs. Indeed, the constant practice in boroughs was quite different. If it were not so, there never could be a double return in them: for, supposing a dispute to exist as to who was the proper returning officer, one of the claimants to the situation would receive the precept, and the other would not. The one who received it would annex a return to the precept, and the sheriff on receiving it would annex that return to his writ. The sheriff, however, when he had a doubt as to who was the proper returning officer, had a right to receive a return from the different claimants for the situation, and to attach both returns to his writ. In the year 1640, when this subject underwent considerable discussion, there was a distinct proposal made to the House that returns coming through the hands of the sheriff should have the preference over those coming through the hands of individuals, and that the members returned by the sheriff should sit as members, until the House came to a decision on their right to continue to do so. That proposition, however, did not meet with the approval of the House. He could state other reasons to prove that it was not necessary that the returns should be annexed to the writ. In the present case, he thought it material to learn whether it was the intention of the sheriff to make a double return, or merely to place the second return in deposit, in case the parties named in it should think right to call for it. On that account he thought it necessary to read the certificate with which the sheriff had presented it to the clerk of the Crown. If it appeared that the sheriff had received on one day an indenture which he had attached to his writ, and then that he had received another indenture which he had not attached to it, he should think that the sheriff had given the preference to the first indenture. He should, therefore, consider the return as a single return, and should presume that the intention of the sheriff in sending up the other return, was merely to have it forthcoming in case the parties should call for it. In acting thus, he thought that the sheriff had acted indiscreetly; for he ought either to have made a single return, or to have annexed both returns to the writ. He did not see the danger which some gentlemen anticipated from having a number of similar returns. Undoubtedly it was in the power of every sheriff to

183
neglect his duty and to make such returns; but then the House possessed the power of punishing him for such misconduct, when it appeared to arise from improper motives. He was of opinion that the clerk of the Crown might have rejected the latter return, or might have made a special return to the House upon it, stating the circumstances under which he had received it, and asking for instructions how he was to act with it. Without intending to cast out any imputations upon that officer, he must say that his present entry in the book was indiscreet. In conclusion, he deemed it necessary that the House should be in possession of the original returns, and of the certificate of the sheriff; and he should therefore have great pleasure in supporting the proposition of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Peelobserved, that his intention in calling in the clerk of the Crown, was to demand from him the original returns, and not to ask him any question. The conduct of that officer had not been impugned, and therefore did not require any explanation. He should merely ask him if the returns he produced were the original returns, and he would then leave the House to exercise its own discretion.
Mr. Abercrombyperfectly agreed with the right hon. Secretary as to the course to be pursued when the clerk of the Crown was called in. He was happy, for the sake of individuals sitting in that House, as well as for the sheriff and the clerk of the Crown, that the House had come to a clear and decided expression of opinion on this question. He had no reason to complain of the conduct of Mr. Wilbraham, the deputy clerk of the Crown, and, under all the circumstances, as he saw no necessity for proceeding further, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.
The clerk of the Crown, being then called in, produced the writ, directed to the sheriff of the county of Cornwall, for holding the late elections in the said county, with an indenture, whereby Stephen Lushington, LL. D., and James Brougham, esq. were returned as burgesses to serve for the borough of Tregony—annexed thereunto. He also produced another indenture, certified by the said sheriff to have been received at the office of his under sheriff, but which last mentioned indenture, whereby it appeared that James Adam Gordon, esq. and James 184
Mackillop, esq. were returned as burgesses to serve for the said borough of Tregony—was not annexed to the writ. Mr. Secretary Peel then moved, "That the return for the borough of Tregony is not a double return;" which was agreed to. And it was ordered, "That the indenture whereby James Adam Gordon, and John Mackillop, esquires, are returned for the borough of Tregony, be taken off the file."

CORN LAWS.
Lord Kingsaid, he had some more petitions to present on a subject on which some persons thought that the less was said the better, but on which, in his opinion, the more was said the better. They were given to understand that no alteration was to take place in the Corn-laws till after the holidays, but they were told, at the same time, that some alteration was decided upon, though God only knew what it was to be. It appeared that his majesty's ministers had a good deal of difficulty in settling with their friends on the subject, and no small share in settling with their colleagues. One fact seemed certain; namely, that in whatever should be done, nothing but the minimum of improvement was likely to be adopted. Various reports were in circulation, some of which had reached his ears. One report was, that when the price of corn was at 55 s. a duty of 17 s. was to be imposed. For his own part, he would much rather it be left at the mercy of ministers, acting on their own responsibility, than at the mercy of so merciless a law as that. He believed there was a malignant party in the cabinet, who were hostile to all improvement, and at variance with their own col-

165
leagues, whose schemes of political economy they hoped would not take effect. It was influenced by a good and an evil principle; but he feared that the evil principle would predominate. The petition which he should now present had been agreed to at a public meeting of the working classes, at Manchester. It stated, that in the twelfth year of peace the greatest misery and distress prevailed, and that the cruel prohibition against the importation of foreign corn deprived the manufacturing classes of a market for the produce of their industry, while it increased the price of bread, only to keep up a standing army, and enable persons to escape from burthens, in order that, they might be imposed on others. In conclusion, the petition prayed for the total abolition of the Corn-laws.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that before he adverted to what had fallen from the noble lord, he wished to offer a few words respecting what had passed in the House yesterday. He had come down to the House on several occasions since the commencement of the session, but found that their lordships had adjourned before five o'clock. Now he did not object to this, for he thought that public business ought to commence at four instead of five o'clock. With respect to the subject matter of the petition, he did not mean to be, on the present occasion, drawn into a discussion relative to the Corn-laws, by any thing that had been said by the noble lord. He could assure the noble lord, however, that he was greatly mistaken in supposing that his majesty's government had not come to a decision on this subject. In that respect there was nothing whatever to prevent him from bringing forward the question at present, but he felt that he should not be dealing fairly with its merits, or with the feeling of the country in doing so, when a full attendance was not to be expected. The object for which parliament had assembled at so early a period, was only to confirm those measures which his majesty's ministers had adopted in September, on their own responsibility, and to grant them the necessary indemnity. He would not be led into any explanation of the measure which it was intended, in due time, to submit to their lordships; feeling, as he did, that any premature statement might cause a great deal of mischief, by giving rise to much misapprehension. He pledged himself, however, to call their lordships' attention to the
166
subject at the earliest possible period after the recess; and, though the measure would naturally originate elsewhere, yet he would not wait for that event to put their lordships in possession of the sentiments of his majesty's government upon a question so very important to the interests of the country.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he did not at all object to the line which the noble earl had prescribed to himself, nor did he mean to urge any proposition against it, though he wished that the noble earl had found it convenient to state the nature of the measure. He trusted, however, that when it was brought forward, sufficient time would be allowed the country to consider its merits. The agriculturists, in their numerous petitions, expressed their sentiments on what they thought fitting for themselves, and in consonance with the interests of the community at large. In petitions respecting the Corn-laws, they did not wish to see the topics of parliamentary reform, or of church property introduced.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was so anxious that a speedy decision should be come to on this question, that he would not, as he had already stated, wait till a measure should be brought forward elsewhere. He was most desirous to take the first convenient opportunity of stating to their lordships the views which his majesty's ministers entertained with regard to it. One general feeling pervaded this country on the subject, and when the question was once mooted, it was of the utmost importance that the decision should not be long delayed. It was very natural that the decision, if kept in suspense, must greatly operate on individual interests. There was nothing which he more desired, than that when the question should be brought forward, a due regard should be had to all the great interests of the country.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, it had been assumed that an alteration in the Corn-laws was necessary, but, in his opinion, no case was made out to establish the necessity.
Lord Clifdenwished that the corn question could have now been gone into. The noble earl had stated many reasons for not bringing the subject forward immediately; but delay was a great evil, for until this question should be settled, no man in the country could tell what his situation was. At the same time, he admitted the

167
question to be one of great difficulty, and one which required the fullest consideration He was ready to confess that the present was not a very convenient time for the discussion; but if it had been practicable, the subject ought to have been gone into now. When, however, it should be brought forward, he trusted that the averages would be got rid of, for they were considered a source of great fraud, and that they were such, he sincerely believed. He would, therefore, be glad to hear that the noble earl was fully prepared to put an end to them, whatever might, in other respects, be the nature of the measure brought forward.
Lord Carberyapproved of the arrangement proposed by the noble earl at the head of the Treasury. He was confident that when the subject came to be discussed, the agricultural interest would be found to wish well to every other interest in the country. The manufacturers believed that their present distress was owing to the high price of corn, but in that he was convinced they were mistaken. The present price of bread was not much beyond what it ought to be.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished to make a single observation in reply to what had fallen from the noble lord who spoke last but one. He was convinced that a little reflection would satisfy the noble lord, that there would be much difficulty and inconvenience in bringing forward a measure of this kind at the present moment. The noble lord must be aware of the time it would take to carry such a measure through both houses of parliament, and how impracticable it would be to accomplish that object before the recess. But there was another consideration: nothing was or could be so inconvenient as bringing the measure forward at this season of the year, or at any time, unless their lordships were sure that they could go quite through with it. Considering the magnitude of the question, their lordships must be convinced that it would be impossible to come to a decision before the recess. At the same time, he assured their lordships that no person was more deeply impressed than he was with the necessity of bringing the question forward at the earliest possible period.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had been intrusted with some petitions which he would have that night brought down with him, had he been aware that any
168
discussion was to arise on the Corn-laws. He entirely concurred in the course which his majesty's government intended to pursue with regard to the bringing forward this question; and he hoped the noble earl would not fail to bring the subject under the consideration of the House at the earliest period possible. A speedy decision was of great importance, because the uncertainty which existed respecting this question was very injurious to the general interests, by greatly affecting the markets. At the same time, he did not conceive that it was practicable, at this period of the session, to carry the measure through both Houses. He hoped, however, that the delay would be attended with this good effect—that the time afforded for consideration would enable parliament to adopt a fixed and permanent regulation. For, until not only that House, but the public at large, were satisfied that any arrangement come to was permanent, the mischief which would flow from the discussion of the subject would be interminable. With regard to price, it was not so much lowness of price that was injurious to agriculturists, as the circumstance of their having been led by parliament to expect high prices. They had made all their arrangements with a view to such prices. In consequence of this state of things, any great alteration in the present system of the Corn-laws must necessarily be attended with a corresponding loss to them. But, nevertheless, that a very considerable change must take place, was an opinion which he had long entertained and frequently expressed. At the same time, from the situation in which the country was placed, and the commercial regulations which had been adopted, it would be impossible to regard the intended measure as a simple question affecting the agricultural interest only. It was a mistaken view of the subject to suppose that different parts of the community had distinct interests on this occasion. If the manufacturers were to obtain corn at so cheap a rate as to throw the poorer lands which now produced it entirely out of cultivation, the injurious effects would fall at last upon themselves. On the other hand, if the agricultural interest obtained too high a price for their corn, that would ultimately have the effect in another way which they so much dreaded, of driving the manufacturer out of the country. In fact, if a disposition

169
should be shown by one part of the public to throw the burthen off themselves on to another, such an attempt would be impossible, for the burthen, such as it was, must be borne by all. What was necessary to be done was, to discover how an adjustment could best be made by which food could be obtained sufficiently cheap for the manufacturer, and at the same time at such a price as would afford due encouragement to the agriculturist—not, however, such a price as would cause the country to be entirely supplied with home-raised corn, for such a state of things would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could befal the agriculturists. The great object which ought to be kept in view was, to form an equitable adjustment; and, if parliament devoted due consideration to the subject, he was sanguine enough to hope that this object might be accomplished, and a permanent arrangement adopted which would set the question at rest. With respect to what his noble friend had said upon the subject of averages, he was inclined to concur. The system of averages was bad, and it would be well if they could be dispensed with; but if they could not be got rid of altogether, some mode might be fallen upon to regulate them, and place them on a better scale. Having said thus much, he must conclude by again stating, that he concurred in the course proposed to be taken by his majesty's ministers.
The Earl of Lauderdaleagreed with his noble friend, in opinion, as to the advantage of a permanent arrangement; but he confessed that his hopes of accomplishing that object were not very sanguine. The present system, when first adopted, was intended to be a permanent one. He had joined his efforts with the noble earl opposite in 1815, in preparing those regulations which were to form a permanent system for a time of peace; and the noble earl then stated, that the system was to be such. He did not concur in those regulations with the view of obtaining high prices. On the contrary, he believed, in his conscience, that if the regulations had been acted on, they would have caused low prices, and, he was still of opinion, that the system was calculated to have that effect. His noble friend, in the observations he had just made, had taken into consideration the interests of the manufacturer on the one hand, and of the land-owner on the other; thus setting
170
the two interests in array, the one Against the other, and making it the business of parliament to arbitrate between them. When, however, the question came to be discussed, he should show that there was but one common interest involved in this question, which did not consist in creating high prices, but in encouraging the agriculture of the country. Their lordships must not take a narrow view of the question, but decide upon broad and statesman-like principles. He had said thus much to guard himself against being supposed to concur in measures which might be proposed for altering the present system.
The Marquis of Lansdownwas sure his noble friend had misunderstood him, when he supposed that he had spoken of any difference or collision of interests between the commercial and agricultural classes. He certainly had alluded to the existence of a hostile feeling which prevailed; but the whole tenor of what he had said went to show that no such feeling ought to exist, and that if such a feeling were acted upon, it would be ruinous to both. In this question, there was, in fact, only one interest to be considered, namely, that of the country at large. In that interest, the manufacturer and the agriculturist were united; the landed interest giving activity to commerce by consuming manufactures, and the manufacturer in return consuming the produce of the agriculturist. In expressing this opinion, he was sure their lordships would not understand him to be representing those interests in a state of hostility. The more the question was investigated, the more it would appear that, strictly speaking, there was but one interest to be consulted.
Lord Kingfully agreed in opinion with, the noble marquis, that there was but one interest on this question, but that different views were taken of that interest. One party took a large view; another a narrow and confined one. Some wished for high prices immediately, others wished for those prices which would be best upon the long run. Now, he was one of those who thought that the best prices on the long run were low prices—very near those of the continent of Europe. If prices here were much above those of the continent, nothing could prevent manufacturers from emigrating. If, as the noble earl near him had said, it was the object of

171
the agriculturists, by the regulations of the present system, to give the country low prices, their mode of doing it was surely very extraordinary. In order to make low prices, they say, let us have a monopoly; but I should rather say, let us have competition. On the contrary, if I wanted high prices, I should like their call for monopoly.
Ordered to lie on the table.