with less trouble and expense than they could do, grow all that was necessary for her purpose. It was clear that, under such circumstances, the price of corn would be much lowered there. But, let gentlemen keep their eyes upon the capital that would be thus liberated from the land. Would that be idle? Would that be employed in no way? Would it not be employed for the purchase and obtaining of other commodities? Would not those commodities be of value in the country, and by their value afford to pay that additional taxation which he had alluded to, in the position that had so much startled the hon. member for Oxford? " But," said that hon. gentleman again, “do you mean to say, that if the price of corn be lessened one half, the country can afford to pay the same money taxation?" He answered confidently, "Yes," these commodities of which he had spoken would enable her to pay it. An opinion had been given in another place, which he thought had been treated with too much levity. It did appear to him, that that opinion was well founded; for he also was one who thought that the low price of corn, under which we were at present labouring, was occasioned by too great a supply. He did not think it to be the consequence of taxation. Whether that abundance was the effect of too great an importation, or arose from a diminution of the demand, still the depression was in every case, if the price did not repay the producer, to be attributed to no other cause but the too great supply. Taxation, undoubtedly, was a very great evil; no man was more ready to deprecate the present system and extent of the taxation than he was; but how did it operate? Take the commonest article of trade; a hat, for instance. If the hat were taxed, the price of the hat rose of course. Enemy as he was to all taxation, he must say that it was not to taxation only that he attributed the distresses of the farmer; and they who did so, attri without hesitation, that gentlemen of landed property had an interest in getting the monopoly of the market for their own corn. In the mode in which they had gone about it, however, they had not been very dexterous or successful. The hon. member for Cumberland had said, with great propriety and truth, that for many years past a glut of corn had always come into the country whenever the price had risen above 80s. This fact confirmed the objections which had been raised to protecting duties upon that commodity. Although a duty on the importation of corn would not be so wise a measure as the approach to that system which he had suggested as constituting the true principle of a corn trade; yet he did think that a permanent duty upon importation would be a much wiser measure than that which had been proposed and advocated. Let them rather have a certain moderate duty which should have a tendency to produce a price of corn that should not be very variable. The last desideratum was of the very highest importance, as much of the evil arose from the fluctuation of prices. The system which had been proposed by the hon. member for Bridgenorth, of duties that should rise as the price of corn fell, and fall as the price of corn rose, he could not consider a very wise one. What would be the situation of the grower, if such a system were put in practice? Supposing he had to contend with the deficiencies of a short crop in one season, he naturally expected to make up for them in the next season. But the adoption of these duties would leave him no such remedy for his misfortunes. The hon. member for Oxford had the other evening appeared surprised at one or two positions which he had ventured to advance. The hon. gentleman had called upon him to solve this riddle, as he called it, namely, "if you open your ports, and import the immense quantities of corn which then will inundate the country, how can it be said the country will be better able to sustain a money tax-buted the evil, he thought, to a wrong ation? so far from it, the means she now possesses, now applicable to that purpose, will be withdrawn from her." But it was not difficult to give the required solution. Suppose the case of a country which was cultivating its own lands, and received no supply from abroad;-a country that had a much better mode and practice of agriculture than others; and which, in con, sequence of that circumstance, could, cause. The hon. member for Wareham had said a great deal, to show that those distresses were principally to be imputed to the heavy duties upon salt. Every person who used salt was injured to a certain degree by that tax: no doubt it was a very grievous burthen, but it was certainly not an adequate reason to be assigned for the present distressed state of agriculture. It had been said that such large quanti kind. Something also had been said on the subject of the national debt. He had no particular individual interest in it, because he derived no revenue from it; but he would say, that the landed interest, the agricultural interest, the trading and every other public interest, were pledged to the public debt. What could be more dishonourable than for a state to carry on the expenses of war by the money advanced upon her good credit by her own subjects, and then to turn round upon those from whom she had borrowed it, and say-"We are involved, and we will not pay you." It was totally unworthy of an enlightened and honourable assembly to entertain a proposition so monstrous. The hon. member for Cumberland appear ties of corn had been imported, and at so low a rate, that all the poor lands would go out of cultivation. This he took to be a fallacy and to proceed from hon. members erroneously supposing that all corn was grown at the same remunerating price. But nothing was more clear than that price was as 30s. in some instances, and 40s., 50s., 60s., and 70s. in others. The hon. member for Essex had told the House what small quantities of corn, after all, had been imported within the last ten or twelve years, from foreign countries. Another hon. gentleman, however, was for prohibiting the importation of foreign corn altogether, and asked them how they were to pay for it? Why, as for that matter, they ought not to contract the debt, if they could not pay for it; and if the facted to entertain a very strange idea of the was that they could not pay for foreign nature of countervailing duties. He had corn, that was pretty good security, he said, that the countervailing duties should conceive, that they would grow it should amount to all the difference bethemselves. Then there was the ware- tween the price for which the foreigner housing system. It had been said, "who could grow corn, and that for which will speculate in corn, when he knows we could afford to grow it. But the what a tremendous quantity of it is hanging fact was by no means so. The House over him?" He would for one; for, if he might remember the large capital emhad bought his corn at 79s., and it was ployed in France during the continental now selling for 70s. he would keep it system of exclusion, in obtaining a species on hand; and take care not to sell it of sugar from beet. Now, the question till it had got above 79s. Then if it rose was, when that exclusion was abolished, only to 80s, he evidently had the market and sugars could be imported, what were in his own hands. The hon. member for they to do with the capital employed in the Cumberland had asked, "Can we grow beet process? The hon. member, on his corn in England on the same terms as the proposition, would have required a counforeign grower." To this he would an- tervailing duty to the amount of the difswer "No:" and for that very reason he ference between the price at which sugar would import it. But, what was the pro- could be so imported, and that at which it posed end of all capital, if it was not this could be extracted from beet. Another -that the possessor should procure a argument was, that rent and capital great abundance of produce with it? Now would be annihilated if the land was if he could prove that by getting rid of all thrown out of cultivation. He did not mean that capital which is employed in land, he to deny that the House ought to deal could make more profitable use of it, then tenderly with all the interests concerned; he contended, that that was in effect so but though opening the ports would throw much capital gained by him. But here a good many labourers out of employagain an erroneous idea prevailed. The ment in land, it would open other sources House was told of the capital which was of labour. The hon. member for Bridgeemployed in land, and told in a manner as north had taken an unfavourable view of if it was absolutely and entirely vested in the state of the country. For his own it. Let them just consider, however, the part, he had better hopes. He could not wages of labour, the price of improve-help feeling that the difficulties of the ments, the charges of manure, and they would find that the total cost of all these items would be a capital saved. The hon. member for Kent had spoken in a very disparaging manner of thrashing machines. Now, in his opinion, every thing which tended to lessen human labour was an advantage to man country were nearly at an end, and that the present unnatural state of depression must soon cease to be felt. He thought we were now reviving; and nothing could so much contribute to that revival as the relief of the people from taxation by every possible means. He had great apprehension from the appointment of this committee, because he feared that it would look for relief to restrictions upon importation. If restrictions were to be imposed, he would rather have a fixed duty than a graduated one, as being most likely to produce permanent benefit to the country. Mr. Calcraft observed, that on a former occasion he had opposed the appointment of a committee upon this subject, but he had now no hesitation in saying that his opinions were changed. He would willingly go into the committee, yet he could never sanction the enactment of higher protecting duties. He had thought the former duty too high, yet he was willing to assent to it, in order to afford protection to the Irish farmer, and to give encouragement to the consumption of Irish corn in the British market. General Gascoyne said, that he should feel extreme jealousy at any measure at all calculated to raise the price of the necessaries of life. The only consolation he had with respect to the proposed committee was, that the opinion of its members would be much at variance on the means of affording relief, that the whole would come to nothing. Mr. Wilson confessed, that he was an advocate for the commercial and shipping interests, but he did not feel the less for the agricultural. He considered that a rise in the price of corn would enable the landlord to pay his labourer better, and keep him out of the workhouse. The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 9. COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE MORNING CHRONICLE"-BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] Mr. Stuart Wortley rose to call the attention of the House to a gross breach of its privileges. He was among those who approved of the publicity given to the debates and proceedings of that House. But, while those reports were allowed by connivance to go forth to the world, it was material to guard against any misrepresentation, especially with respect to the decisions or votes of the House; and it was a misrepresentation of this nature which he felt it his duty to submit to the House. That misrepresentation appeared in "The Morning Chronicle" of the 26th of February, and contained a very foul libel upon a majority of that House. The terms of this libel were as follows:-" List of the minority of 37 who voted on Friday last, the 23rd, for hearing the petition of Thomas Davison read before it was rejected, and against lord Castlereagh's admonition to the people of England, not to trouble and take up the time of the House of Commons any more with their petitions." [Hear, hear.] After hearing such a libel, he could not but express his surprise at the cheers on the other side. Did any gentleman mean to assert that the majority who voted upon the occasion alluded to, did decide in favour of the admonition which lord Castlereagh was alleged to have given? If any gentleman were so disposed, he would say to him, look at the Journals, do you find there that any such proposition was ever brought forward as this paragraph implies was supported by the majority?" He would dare any man to prove that the de CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND.] Mr. S. Rice moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the capital punishments attached to the commission of certain offences in Ireland. The crimes from which he proposed to remove capital punish-cision of the House was here fairly dements were, stealing privately in a shop; scribed. The statement, then, was a libel. the forcible abduction of women; and the | The statement to which he referred imconcealment of effects by bankrupts. He puted to a majority of that House a decialso proposed to repeal certain laws sion which it never pronounced, and a against witchcraft. It was right, he ob- motive upon which it never acted. Such a served, that the punishment of crimes proposition was never made, and was it not should, in every instance, be as conforma- then most unwarrantable to charge a ma ble as possible to public opinion; and in jority of that House with voting in favour Ireland this was particularly necessary, of words to that effect, not one of those where there existed such a disposition to words appearing in the motion upon prosecute for many capital offences, and which this majority decided? Some such such a horror of informers. words were, it was said, made use of in the course of the debate. But, whether such words were made use of or not, they formed no part of the motion upon which Leave was given to bring in the bill. the House divided, and it would be too much to charge upon a majority every word used by any member of that majority. If such principle were established, there would be an end of all freedom of debate. There was another publication within a few days in the same paper, with respect to the members who voted upon the motion of the hon. member for Abingdon, in which a false colouring was given to the views of the majority. Upon this publication, however, he did not mean to call for any animadversion. But if the practice were to go on, of publishing the names of gentlemen as they voted in that House (and by the way he could not account for the manner in which such lists were furnished, as strangers were excluded upon a division), he must say, that accuracy should be attended to, and that no false description should be sent forth as to the motives of either the majority or the minority. He felt it necessary to assert the privileges of the House, and should move," That J. Lambert, the printer and publisher of the Morning Chronicle, do attend this House on Monday." Mr. Bennet said, that as to the passage complained of, he was led to believe that every word of it was true. Since he had heard of the intention to bring forward the complaint under consideration, he had taken the trouble of inquiring with respect to the practice of publishing lists of the names of members who voted in majorities and minorities of that House, and he had found, that it had prevailed for above a century. The first instance was that of a division in the House of Lords in 1703; next, that of a division in 1714, upon the expulsion of sir R. Steele. Then followed the lists upon the proposition of the Excise laws, and upon the employment of foreign troops in 1742. From that period down to the present this practice had prevailed; and now, for the first time, a complaint was preferred against it, and that too, upon very untenable grounds; for, although the House did not distinctly come to a vote upon the extraordinary admonition of the noble secretary for foreign affairs, from all that he had heard the paragraph complained of contained a correct description. Whether any gentlemen were ashamed of what they did, or how they voted generally in that House, he should not pretend to say. But he should not be at all surprised, to find some gentlemen, unwilling to have it known to the world that they had voted against the reception of the petition of a fellow-subject, without even allowing it to be read, although it came from a poor man pining in gaol. The hon. mover was not among those who voted against the reception of that petition, and there, fore it was found convenient to put him forward upon this occasion. But, as to the motion, he considered it peculiarly indiscreet, and in order to get rid of it, be would move, "That this House do now adjourn." Sir Charles Long said, that the ground of his hon. friend's complaint was not against the practice alluded to, but against a particular paragraph, imputing improper motives to a majority of the House upon a certain occasion. By this paragraph that majority was charged with support, ing an admonition to the people not to trouble that House any more with their petitions; which charge was contrary to the fact. His noble friend had been accused of admonishing members of that House not to present the petitions of the people. But what was the fact? Why, that some gentle men, declaring that they felt it their duty to present any petition, couched in deco. rous and respectful language, his noble friend had observed, that it was the duty of every member, not merely to examine the style or expressions, but the matter or object of any petition which he was called upon to present. Sir R. Wilson expressed a hope, that, as the publication alluded to did not contain any direct censure upon the House, or upon the majority alluded to, the hon. gentleman would have the liberality to withdraw his motion. Mr. Creevey said, that the first part of the statement in the paragraph complained of was literally true, while the second was, according to his impression, substantially correct. The noble lord, after he gave the admonition referred to, certainly attempted several explanations; but still his conception of the noble lord's original meaning remained unchanged. Upon such a declaration then from any minister, or any member of that House, with respect to the right of petitioning, it was the duty of the public press to animadvert. If gentlemen thought the printer had been betrayed into indiscretion, he trusted to the liberality of the House that such indiscretion would not be made the subject of punishment. The printer might have been indiscreet; but what was his indiscretion compared to that | as having voted against a particular of lord Castlereagh, in the declaration principle, and it was to be inferred that which gave rise to the paragraph under the majority were in favour of it. Now, consideration? It would not become their with respect to the words used by the dignity or discretion to found any pro- noble lord, he had understood them in ceedings upon such a publication, especi- this sense-that persons presenting petially after the course adopted with respect tions ought to be admonished that it was to the address from the Presbytery of in the power of the House to refuse those Langholme. petitions, if the subject referred to was them. If the words of the noble lord were misunderstood at first, he had afterwards sufficiently explained their meaning. As to the principle involved in the present motion, he contended, that if the House refused to assert its privileges on such occasions, they would be opening a door for great abuses. Mr. Wallace observed, that the ques-one which ought not to be brought before tion was not whether his noble friend had made an indiscreet declaration, but whether a gross libel had been published upon the conduct of a majority of that House? For himself, he was anxious that his acts and votes in that House should be fully made known; but as to the declaration imputed to his noble friend, he denied that he had uttered any such words as those imputed to him. Sir J. Newport said, that the noble lord had used words with respect to the presentation of petitions, which at first struck him as bearing the construction put upon them, but the noble lord had afterwards qualified them. As well as he could recollect the words of the noble lord, they were these" I would really request gentlemen to admonish those who bring them petitions, not to burthen the House with them in the manner they do." As to what had been contended that this House was not the proper tribunal for hearing complaints relative to the administration of justice, he declared, that if a petition were offered to him to-morrow, complaining of the conduct of a court of justice, he should feel it his duty to present it: for to what purpose was a committee of justice appointed, but to enable the people to bring before that House such grievances as they might suffer from malversation in the administration of justice? Sir M. W. Ridley conceived, that if the noble lord had used words to the effect stated, he had afterwards, by his explanation, done away the impression which they had made. After all, as the first indiscretion had been on the part of the noble lord, and then an indiscretion on the part of some other hon. member who put the title to the minority, he thought it would be advisable to let the matter rest. Mr. Huskisson said, he was one of those who did not object to the publication of lists; but he must object to the introduction of such lists, with misstatements of the nature of the vote. The insinuation here was against the majority; for the minority was described Mr. Stuart Wortley said, it had not been his intention to persist in his motion, for bringing the printer to the bar of that House, for he believed he was not the person who was most to blame; but, after the hon. gentlemen opposite had thought proper to defend the act of which he complained, he would put it to the House, whether it would be consistent with their dignity to pass it over without animadversion. Still, however, as far as he was personally concerned, he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, provided gentlemen on the other side would admit that it was an unjustifiable proceeding to impute motives to members in the way in which they had been imputed in the paper complained of. If they persisted in defending such conduct, he thought the House could not do less, in vindication of its own dignity, than call the printer to the bar, that he might at least receive some admonition. Lord Castlereagh said, that certainly a more detestable and wicked libel had never been published. If he had himself called the attention of the House to this subject, it was perhaps no more than he ought to have done; and he could only justify himself for having abstained from taking that course, by that self-indulgence which might be allowed to a minister. Now, however, that it was brought before the House, he must say, that to impute to him a desire to prevent the people from exercising the right of petition, was not only wicked, but absurd. He certainly had admonished the people not to present petitions, complaining of grievances, in which that House could afford them no relief; and such an admonition, he apprehended, was an act of great kindness to the people of England. But, when he |