discouragement of importation had pro- | war, permanent in time of peace-if, duced no inconvenience in the metro- indeed, they were to have peace. Suppolis. It had been asserted, that the ex-pose it were conceded that it was a wise perience of the early part of the last system of legislation to encourage one century afforded a strong argument in species of industry at the expense of favour of a similar system for the present others, in opposition to the common sense day. That was a point which rested of mankind; was it expedient to adopt a partly on experience of the past, and permanent system, a system calculated partly on the opinions of men supposed to operate for twenty years on this the to be peculiarly qualified to come to an most important of all subjects, in a situa accurate conclusion on the subject; and tion in which nothing else was permanent, no doubt the opinions of such men ought when they knew not whether they were to be asked, and received with respect to have peace or war; or even, if they and attention. But though they were to were to enjoy the blessings of peace, refuse to listen to the opinions of these when they knew not in what condition petitioners, would their lordships refuse matters were likely to settle and rest to hear them state facts, which it was To legislate on such a subject, under such most material for their lordships to know, circumstances, was, he must say, very before they finally decided a question of little becoming the wisdom. and dignity this magnitude? The period to which he of Parliament. On the subject of the had adverted was not so remote as to manner in which the average price was render it impossible to bring forward facts calculated, he should not attempt to add relating to it as connected with this any thing to what had been said by a system. The latter period, from 1766 to noble friend of his; but he must advert the present time, was certainly not too to the answer given by another noble remote. With respect to that at least, friend, that this average price of 80s. many important facts might be communi- was not the result of minute inquiry, and cated; and could their lordships refuse to careful and certain calculation, but founded listen to them? In considering how the upon an arbitrary guess. Good God, laws on this subject had operated, in en- what an expression, when applied to such couraging or discouraging importation, a subject as this!-an arbitrary guess from how far the average price corresponded the opinions of a few witnesses, without with the natural price of corn, with other proof or calculation. Half a dozen witmatters most important to be ascertained nesses had given their opinions as to what to what could their lordships resort but appeared to them to be a proper price, the evidence of facts and experience? and the average was struck out of these It had been said, that though there was opinions. But their lordships were bound no necessity at present to legislate on this to be satisfied by some strong proof as to subject, the measure would be productive what was the proper average with relation of much good at a future period. On to the present price and the general what ground did that opinion rest? If it quantity now raised. It was idle to ask rested on the dearness of grain during the any particular farmer at what price he last twenty years, how could they know could raise corn. It depended on the whether this was a good ground to rest county, on the parish, on the nature of upon, without an examination of facts? the farm, and the nature of the different It surely ought to be shown, that the kinds of land on the same farm. With dearness of corn was owing to the bad respect to the witnesses who had given effects of the principle acted upon during their opinions respecting the price at the period in question. If the inconve- which corn could be raised, those opinience was serious and lamentable, their nions always had a reference to the time lordships ought to inquire whether the at which the question was asked, and the evil had resulted from the check imposed charges of cultivation at that particular by the war upon importation, or from the period. All the witnesses, either directly supposed discouragement of agriculture. or indirectly, so qualified their opinions. If it should appear that the dearness If, then, the time was so studiously of corn had been the effect of the difficul- taken into account in giving these opities thrown in the way of importation, it nions, where was the proof that bewould be then for their lordships to con- cause 80s. might be a proper average at sider whether they ought to render that one period, it was therefore a proper inconvenience which arose from a state of average price now? If the charges of capital, British or otherwise, was directed to foreign manufactures, what means they had of fuel, what skill of machinery. He believed, in the latter point at least, there was no deficiency in what was called our rival nation. Philosophically speaking, he could not desire that a knowledge of mechanics should belong only to one nation. The great question was, would you refuse to inquire into the allegations of the petitioners coming forward to prove that their allegations were founded? His lordship then moved, "that the petitioners be permitted to give evidence, and to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House." cultivation were diminished, why should not a lower average answer the purpose? They had now on their table, among other valuable information, a table of charges, and he defied any man to examine that table, without being convinced from the nature of the charges, that they must be very much reduced by the diminution in the price of corn. This proved the neces sity, if they meant to fix the proper average, of much more minute and accurate information, and for that reason they ought not to legislate on such general grounds. He deprecated any interference whatever; but if the average had been named before with reference to the charges of cultivation at the time, why did they not now proceed on the same principle? Lord Grenville then proceeded to speak of the assize. On that subject he had been told, that under the present system 80 shillings for corn would make the loaf 16d. A noble earl (Liverpool) denied that, and seemed to think he could support his denial by proof-[hear!] Well, then, why not allow of the matter's being tried by proof at the bar? Bread was now 112d. the quartern loaf, and the average at 63s. It was hard to conceive, that if the average rose to 80s. bread would not be more than a shilling. All this was matter of proof. The pressure on manufactures was to be examined; that was also matter of proof, and on those things evidence was adducible. It was expedient to look carefully into the effect of the price of bread on the rate of labour, and that again on the dearness of manufactures, as influencing their reception in the foreign market. He had some time since received a table, stating this inquiry in a particular point of view. He had desired the idea to be enlarged, and believed he should have received the improved table from the person in question, but for the hurry of the Bill. He had, however, this day, on coming to the House, received from another person, a table of the nature he mentioned: he had not had time to make himself master of it, but it doubtless contained much important information. This ought not to be excluded from their lordships means of knowledge. The table gave the alterations of the value of bread for twenty-six years, with the contemporary alterations in the cheapness of manufactures. A noble earl (Liverpool) had said that our superiority in manufactures depended on our capital, fuel, and machinery. Inquiry might be directed to shew how much (VOL. XXX, ) The Lord Chancellor said, that in every view of the present question as connected with the petitioners, and as involving manufacturing interests, he was inclined to attribute to it great importance: but in all its views, he must speak his fair opinion upon it; and he should speak that without considering the consequences to which he might be subjected, and to which, indeed, he had been subjected long before this discussion. In this free country, God forbid that any reasonable petition should not be received: God forbid that any should be rejected with disdain. The House would, in himself, hear a man who had lived through the most trying times of the country; and he would declare that he had always seen the petitions of the subject received with attention by that House, and their merits then decided on by the judgment of that House alone, They could recur to no other standard. The House, must be the final judge, and on its own discretion too. It was the only true and constitutional mode: but if that mode were once given up, from that moment the country was given up; but that moment, he for one, would not wish to survive. It was to him of no consideration whether the Bill was to serve the manufacturing or the agricultural interest -to satisfy him, its benefits must be general. Of the language that had been used on this subject, he could not help saying, though without allusion to whom it might have been used, or without pointing to this House, or the other, or the City, that that language was not calculated in general to work the ends of a true and solid deliberation. From all this, heats and disturbance must arise. As to petitions, it was the practice of the House to attend to them, but not to such a degree as to paralyse its judgment. There were points on which it would allow of no interference ; (R) pose, that the Legislature could ever have sanctioned practices so directly subversive of its main uses. If one petition, complaining generally of a principle, was to be listened to, why not listen to all that might be offered? He would turn to the noble lord himself: no man possessed a larger share of parliamentary experience, and he would ask him, had he ever met with a fact of the kind to sustain his present application? Had he been able to prop it up with a single precedent? As to himself, he had sat on that woolsack 13 years, and he would not be fit to sit an hour longer there, if he could not decide this. His experience necessarily furnished him with the history of a multitude of bills and petitions, and he had never seen one received when it did not turn on particular injuries received. General interests, in which the whole community had an equal share, were not suffered to come into those petitions. As to the phrase of rejecting the petition, or any petition, with disdain, it expressed no idea of his; but he could not allow himself, in matters of right, to distinguish between corporation and corporation, or corporation and individual. He considered every man coming to that bar as a respectable Briton, and to be relieved as far as its rules might allow. Now, if the petition was not to be sustained on authority and precedent, on what was it to be sustained? He must give his negative to the motion. To sup. port the rules of the House, was actually to support the constitution, of which they were among the safeguards. and this was done without infringing the rights of the subject. No petitions, for instance, were allowed on Tax Bills: as to the Corn Bill, the House must decide on their own judgment. The majorities on it were greater than he had ever seen; and after this declared sense of the House, how could he persuade himself that the noble lord was not acting against his better judgment? How could the city of London be heard by counsel against the Bill? It was against the rules of the House. He would suppose nothing of the past session, nothing of the present, but that this was the second reading-and that the city of London petitioned. The rules and practices of the House were against the petitions being received. These rules and practices, the lex et consuetudo parliamenti, were among the safeguards of the constitution, and they could not be violated with impunity. He said nothing of this from disregard of the City. He had a great respect for it as a body, much regard for many of its members: he had received much attention from it. But to all petitions in the same spirit and substance as the petition of the City, he must oppose the rules of the House. He knew that the number of petitions against the Bill was almost unexampled. The number of petitions for it was yet nearly as numerous; the signatures were not indeed as many, but that might be owing to obvious causes. But the point on which his consent must turn was, whether the petition on the table complained of certain and specific injuries. Did it point out what manufacturers would suffer; did it speak in the name of the injured individuals? No; he could find nothing but opinions upon the general principle of the Bill. If this was allowed as a sufficient claim for the hearing of counsel, why must not Bristol be heard,-why must not Birmingham, why not Cheltenham,-why not, in fact, every town in the kingdom? [The duke of Gloucester here expressed some dissent.] "The noble duke," said the Lord Chancellor, " cries, Hear! I wish he would hear, and I now tell him, that as I think all petitioners equal, I know all peers to be so." He then proceeded-If they were to hear the petitions of the City against agriculture, why not hear those of agriculture in turn? Their bar might be thus perpetually occupied by debating upon general principles. The greater occupations and duties of the House must be at an end. It was impossible to sup Earl Grey could not help feeling con siderable surprise at the speech which he had just heard. The matter of it was most new to him, and the agitation under which it had been delivered made it still more peculiar. But he must, however, reluctantly, advert to the address made to a noble duke near him. That noble person had been told, that all peers were equal. Certainly, whatever might be the cause of the declaration, there was no man in that House who stood less in need of it: those who had the honour of being in habits of intercourse with that noble person, were fully acquainted with that truth; and there was perhaps no peer among their lordships in whom the consciousness of high rank was less obvious and obtrusive. The noble lord had disputed the petition on the ground of its generality. He said he would consider the Bill as one, then before their lord borious class of the city. But this peti were distinctly stated in a petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-council, in March. It stated, that raising the price of bread raised the expense of ma was coupled by direct reference with the former, and it came to their lordships bar asking to be heard by counsel to the complaints already detailed. He could con rules of the House. But was the practice to be actually adopted of narrowing the entrance of the subject's complaints? He should conceive this an unhappy innovation indeed. He felt the advantage of a liberal reception of those appeals almost as important to the House as to the complainant. Like the poet's mercy-" It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes." The exercise of the right of petitioning, prevented the bursting forth of those desperate dissensions which often produced convulsions under despotic governments; and on no subject should their lordships show themselves more ready to listen to the complaints of the people, than on that which related to their subsistence. ships for the first time. The value of this concession was nothing. The petition must not be taken alone; the injuries tioners might in any stage of the Bill desire to be heard. That noble lord had said, that if one city had a right to be heard by counsel, so had all the rest. No doubt of it. So they all had. If Lon-nufacturing labour. The present petition don had a right, so had Bristol. It was perfectly certain, that if they had a right to complain, they had a right to be heard. He was told, that thus the House would be overcome with petitions: but was this in-ceive nothing that came more within the capable of remedy? Was it not possible to tell the petitioners that the matter of their petitions had been already determined, and that it was not necessary to examine into them further? But was there no instance of evidence being given and counsel heard on a petition on the general principle? Two years ago, had not counsel been heard on the Orders in Council? The question had been then indeed driven to a painful extremity, one which no friend to the country could contemplate, without regret at the train of measures which drove it on. But then the principle was the general one of in jury to the commercial prosperity of the country, and evidence was brought to confirm it. But, as to the favourite argument of the noble lord, was he to be told The Earl of Liverpool would confine that it was a good answer to the city of himself strictly to the question now before London-we cannot hear you, because the House; which was, not whether the Bristol has as good a right to be heard as petition of the city of London should be you have? But the petition did actually received, but whether the petitioners come within the limits of the noble lord. should be heard by counsel in support One of its clauses turned on the assize of of the allegations it contained. His obbread; which, by diminishing the loaf, jection to this was founded on a principle was now in the light of an injury, and as from which the House never departed, such suitable for the relief of parliament. namely, that they would not hear partiThere was no doubt that regulation in cular parties on a question of general such matters had a tendency to lower the legislation. A departure from this rule, quantity; and here was an injury to be in the present instance, would justify and removed, or at least examined into. This authorise a similar application from every was an immediate concern of the copora- individual in the country, whatever his tion of London. There was another point condition or degree, who thought his of view, important also. The corporation interests affected by the present measure. fixed the assize. It was asserted that the This, it was obvious, would lead to endless quartern loaf would rise to 16d. It was delay; and on this ground of policy it a matter of moment to them to prove that was that the House would not hear indiviif injury was done here, it was by the as- duals on their special interests, when a size laws, and not by their management measure of general policy was before them. of it. But who were the petitioners? The present Bill affected the whole counThe corporation of the city of London. try; it proposed no separate regulation Had they no special interest? Un- for the city of London; and he was condoubtedly they had, and that in three vinced that if the House were to go on ways as consumers, as men interested bearing evidence, and listening to counsel in the common prosperity of the country, for ten years to come, they would hear and as masters of that multitude of me. precisely the same arguments as had been ebanics and artificers that formed the la- already urged. The whole subject had already undergone ample consideration. | farmer, there would necessarily be a great For three sessions it had been before par- deficiency in the produce-such a defiliament; and the committees of the House ciency indeed as could not be compensated of Commons, which had twice reported by any importation: the quantity of corn upon it, were open to the members for the imported into this country in the years of city of London, where they had ample greatest scarcity was not more than ten opportunity of furnishing every informa- millions of quarters of wheat, which was tion. Last session, also, their lordships' only a tenth of the quantity consumedcommittee had reported that though perhaps not more than three or four weeks between 70 and 80 petitions were presented, consumption. and that of the city of London among the rest, yet not one of the petitioners had thought fit to come forward. The committee were empowered by the House to examine all the evidence they might think fit to offer this was a public notice to all, and afforded ample opportunities for the production of evidence. Lord St. John said, that the country was in such circumstances as would render it unwise to go into the subject. There was an impossibility on the part of all men to go on under the present circumstances. The shopkeeper, the farmer, the manufacturer, all found an equal stagnation. The petitioners had last year had an opportunity of stating any information they possessed, and they did not avail themselves of it. Now they came forward, when the opportunity was gone by. He did not think they had any fair claim to ask for an opportunity, which they had so long neglected. The noble lord who had brought forward the motion, said that the whole system of protections was founded on error. But what else had brought this country to such a state of prosperity ? Great Britain was not meant by nature for that greatness to which she had attained. It was her constitution and her wise regulations that had carried her to such a pitch of elevation. His lordship took the opportunity of delivering his sentiments upon the Bill, respecting which he had heard nothing to change his opinion, contending that it was a measure of general benefit and advantage, by the encouragement it afforded to agriculture, and the raising a supply within ourselves. The Earl of Hardwicke stated, that the committee of the last session had taken great pains to procure evidence on the part of the petitioners, though unsuccessfully. The Earl of Selkirk said, that if they suffered corn to fall too low, it could not fail to rise again to an exorbitant height. A very considerable part of the land of the country being thrown out of cultivation by the want of encouragement to the Earl Stanhope rose to order, and begged the noble lord to consider the question before the House. The Lord Chancellor said, that if the noble earl had wished to confine the House strictly to the question, he should have interfered four hours ago. The Earl of Selkirk contended, that he was strictly in order; all the reasons he had stated were so many reasons for speedily passing a measure which would give confidence to the farmer. The The Earl of Darnley thought the petitioners should be heard at the bar, as they had stated a special interest, viz. the assize of the quartern loaf. And he should be able to prove, if the question was inquired into, that the quartern loaf would not be so high as was apprehended. loaf had never been so high as 14d. in any year when the average price was 80s. except in one instance. Although he should at all times do his duty, without any regard to clamour, he thought the utmost attention should be paid to petitions. Lord Erskine stated, that it had never been the practice of Parliament to hear petitioners by counsel, unless they could prove some special interest, distinct from the rest of the community; else there could be no end to petitions; one town might state it was not satisfied with the evidence adduced by another town, and beg to be heard by counsel merely for the sake of delay. He expressed himself favourable to a measure for the protection of the farmer in the employment of his capital. The Lord Grenville briefly replied. arguments that a special interest was the only ground on which petitioners could pray to be heard, was, he thought, erroneous, because, in the first place, no general rule could be adduced to bind down the conduct of Parliament, which was only to be guided by its discretion; and because the argument of his noble friend, that petitions would be presented, praying to be allowed to adduce evidence, |