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 for 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 practi-ward this question; and he hoped the cable, 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 Carbery approved 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. but one. 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 intcrest only. It was a mistaken view of the subject to suppose that different parts of the com The Earl of Liverpool wished to make a single observation in reply to what had fallen from the noble lord who spoke last 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 con-munity had distinct interests on this occavinced 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 Lansdown said, he had been intrusted with some petitions which he would have that night brought down with him, had he been aware that any sion. 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 Corn Laws. 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 homeraised 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 The averages, he was inclined to concur. 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 Lauderdale agreed with his noble friend, in opinion, as to the advantage of a permanent arrangement; but he confessed that his hopes of accomplishing The that object were not very sanguine. present system, when first adopted, was He had intended to be a permanent one. oppojoined his efforts with the noble earl site 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 the two interests in array, the one against The Marquis of Lansdown was sure his Lord King fully 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. Some wished One party took a large view; another a narrow and confined one. for high prices immediately, others wished for those prices which would be best upon Now, he was one of those the long run. 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 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. HOUSE OF COMMONS, DEISM OATHS IN COURTS OF JusTICE-PETITION OF ROBERT TAYLOR.] Mr. Hume said, 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 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 Onslow said, he felt con 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. Hume here intimated, that the petitioner did believe in a future state. If Mr. Serjeant Onslow continued. 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. Batley said, that as a member of 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. Carrington expressed 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 Peel said, 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 of the gospels, but, at the same time, firmly acknowledged the existence of a God. Mr. Hume expressed a wish that the petition should be read, in order to set the learned serjeant right as to the 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, had a strong opinion. He would not did not believe, than from that of him then state it; but, if ever the hon. gentle-who fairly stated that he denied the truth man 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 support-petitioner's belief. ed, 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 a question, which, although it had been mixed up with the other, was not actually before them. Mr. W. Smith observed, that the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Secretary afforded another proof of 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 was, 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 "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. |