pect to forgery, the number of trials for | legitimate course of trade, and to take up notes forged on the country banks was very inconsiderable, and he doubted whether in Scotland one man had been executed for many years. At all events, he was not to be deterred, by the existence of some objections, from the adoption of any measure involving a great national object. But, were not bills of exchange liable to be forged as well as bank-notes? And was not the number of persons tried for the issue of counterfeit coin to be looked to, when the hon. and learned gentleman laid so much stress on the prosecutions for forgery? He believed it would be found, that 280 convictions had taken place in the course of the last year, for the crime of counterfeiting the coin of the realm. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that he did not consider the other classes of the community as being at all in a flourishing situation, and that even if they were, that circumstance could not console him for the distressed state of the agricultural classes. It was true that the evil was of a most appalling description; but still he could not agree that there was no consolation in seeing that the other classes were better off at present than they had been. He would admit, that it was no compensation to be told this; but surely it ought to console them in some measure. That the manu facturers, and the working classes genenerally, were in a state of comparative ease and comfort, was undeniable. He defied any man upon any other principle to account for the known fact, that the produce of the taxes upon consumption was gradually and steadily rising. The hon. and learned member had mentioned a plan, which he had placed in a ludicrous light, calling it a pawnbroking plan. He (Mr. H.) knew nothing of any such plan, but he would state to the House what had occurred in the last year's committee. An hon. friend of his, not now present (the member for Taunton), looking at the situation in which the country was placed, with a monopoly of corn, and a prohibition of trade in that article, had given it as his opinion, that no plan could give such effectual relief to the market as that government should buy up the surplus in years of abundance, keeping it to be dealt out in years of deficiency, and so suiting in both cases the supply to the demand. To that proposal he (Mr. H.) had objected upon principle. But, if a country chose to proceed out of the fair and persevere in an artificial system, some measure, not in itself desirable, might become absolutely necessary as an antidote to the dangers of that system. If this country would place itself in the situation of having no free intercourse with other nations in the trade in corn, and still continued liable to the fluctuation of seasons, it followed of course, that a wise permanent system would be to try if posble to hoard the surplus of a year of plenty to meet the possible exigency of an unfavourable harvest. He (Mr. H.) did not recommend the plan which he was about to mention; but some measure was necessary both for the grower who would be ruined by an overstocked market in full years, and for the consumer, who would want protection against the scarcity of bad ones. He did not recommend the plan as good in itself; but he thought it less injurious than the plan of the hon. member for Taunton; and the plan he suggested was this:-It had long been the policy of England to give a bounty upon the exportation of corn; the suggestion was, to convert that which, according to old principles, had been a bounty upon exportation, into a small advantage upon the hoarding of corn. No money was to be advanced by government. No three balls were to be hoisted. It was merely giving something like the amount of the old bounty in another shape. He admitted freely that this system was a bad one; but it was a bad system growing out of a bad course of policy. The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the proposition as to the conversion of the annuity for lives into an annuity for a term of years. The hon. and learned gentleman had talked of the expensive machinery attendant upon that proceeding: he could assure the House that no arrangement could be more simple. He would not at that late hour detain the House by opening or explaining the resolutions which he intended to move. He would lay them on the table, and remain satisfied with their being printed. When the House met again on the subject, he would state the cause of the difference between the resolutions proposed by him and those proposed by his noble friend. The course he should suggest was, that the resolutions being put pro forma, the chairman should report progress upon the first resolution. The whole of the resolutions might then be printed, and handed about among the members. The right hon. gentleman was about to sit down; but several voices called for the reading of his resolutions. He accordingly read them as follow: 1. "That the ports of the United Kingdom were shut against the importation of foreign wheat, for home consumption, in the month of February, 1819, the average price being then 78s. 7d. a quarter, and that they have remained closed ever since; the average price of the year 1820 having been 65s. 7d.-of the year 1821, 54s. 5d.-and of the three first months of 1822, 47s. 9d. a quarter. 2. "That in the year 1819, the quantity of British wheat imported into the port of London was 300,416 quarters; in 1820, 399,009 quarters; and in 1821, 494,828 quarters; and that during the whole of this period of three years, the supply, in all the principal markets of the United Kingdom, appears uniformly to have exceeded the demand, notwithstanding the wants of an increasing population, and other circumstances, which have probably produced an increased annual consumption. 3. "That this excess of the supply above the demand must have arisen either from an extent of corn tillage more than commensurate to the average consumption of the country; or from a succession of abundant harvests upon the same extent of tillage; or from the coincident effect of both these causes. 4. "That in the fluctuation of se sons, the effect of the present corn law must be, to expose, sometimes the grower of corn to the losses incident to an över redundant produce, and at other times the consumer to the pressure inseparable from dearth; that the free importation of foreign corn (the remedy provided by the law for the latter evil), if wanted to a great amount, must be precarious in proportion as the demand is unusual; and that against the former evil the law affords to the grower no relief whatever. 5. "That the alternate evils of redundancy and scarcity cannot fail to be aggravated by the alternate excitement and depression to which the agriculture of the United Kingdom must be exposed, under the present system of our corn laws. 6. "That another evil effect of this system is, to convert farming into a hazardous and gambling speculation, which, however prudently managed, must occasionally involve great losses to the capitals engaged in agriculture. 7. "That a free trade in foreign corn, subject to certain duties on the importation thereof for home consumption, was at all times permitted, prior to the act of the 55th Geo. 3rd, c. 26. 8"That since the passing of that act, by which such importation is prohibited until the average price of wheat shall have reached or exceeded, for a certain time, 80s. a quarter, and other grain in proportion, a great accumulation of foreign corn has taken place in the warehouses of this country, and of the continent. 9. "That to obviate the prejudicial effects VOL. VII. of that aet, and to ensure a regular supply of grain, at prices as much as possible steady and moderate, it is expedient to provide for the repeal of so much of the said act as prohibits, under certain prices, the importation of foreign grain for home consumption. 10. "That in order to render this repeal safe to the grower of British corn, and graduat in its operation, under the present accumulation of foreign grain in the warehouses of this country and in the ports of the continent, it is expedient to provide that the foreign wheat now under bond in the United Kingdom may be taken out for home consumption, upon the payment of a duty of 15s. per quarter, as soon as the average price of wheat, ascertained in the usual mode, shall exceed 70s. a quarter; and that at the expiration of three months from the date of such admission of warehoused wheat into home consumption, or so much sooner as the average price shall exceed 80s. a quarter, wheat from abroad may be admitted, upon the payment of the like duty. 11. "That the trade in foreign corn shall thenceforth be permanently free; but subject to the following duties upon importation, or when taken out of warehouse for home consumption:- wheat, 15s. a quarter, when the price shall not exceed 80s.; and when above that price, 5s.; and above 85s., one shilling ;— rye, peas, and beans, 9s. 6d. a quarter, when the price shall not exceed 53s.; and when above 53s., one shilling;-barley, bear or bigg, 7s. 6d. a quarter, up to 40s.; and when above that price, one shilling;-oats, 5s. a quarter, up to 28s.: and when above that price, one shilling. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, April 30. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Mr. Peel presented a petition from the university of Oxford against the Roman Catholic claims. Sir T. Lethbridge took that opportunity motion that night about to be made by a of declaring his opinion, that if the whole object would have been accomright hon. gentleman was carried, the plished. The reason why petitions had not been numerously laid on the table, was, that the great body of the people. were so absorbed in the consideration of their own distresses as to be totally indif ferent to all political subjects. He protested, however, against their silence being construed in favour of that motion. The people still continued decidedly hostile to the question. He trembled, however, at the probable effect of the right hon. gentleman's (Mr. Canning's) Р eloquence: he trembled, because he himself had too lately been an instance of its captivation. A few nights ago, he came down with the intention of voting with the noble lord (J. Russell), until he had heard the very eloquent speech of the right hon. gentleman. He had a right to argue, that the same influence which that eloquence had had over his mind, might, on the present question, be equally persuasive over the minds of others, and lead them from the true and strict path of their duty [loud laughing]. Being himself an instance, he thought it right that members should be cautioned. He did believe that the great body of the people required a more adequate share of the representation; and such a proposition he should support when brought forward in a manner more reconcileable to his feelings. Ordered to lie on the table. ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS BILL.] Mr. Canning rose and said:* Sir; if I could flatter myself with the expectation of conveying to the minds of those who hear me, the same conscientious conviction that is impressed upon my own, of the justice and expediency of the measure which I am about to recommend to the consideration of the House, I should approach this question with a feeling of confidence such as I have never before experienced. If I now approach it with feelings of a mixed nature; with much of hope, indeed, but with much of trepidation and anxiety, it is because, if my motion should unhappily fail of success, (I trust it will not fail) I have no refuge in the doubtfulness of my case, none in the paucity of arguments to be adduced in support of it, from the painful but unavoidable conclusion, that a cause unquestionably just will have been lost by the inability of its advocate. Before I proceed to state the grounds on which I shall call on the House for "the removal of the disabilities under which Roman Catholic peers labour with respect to their undoubted right of sitting and voting in parliament, it may be expedient to get rid of some particular and preliminary objections, which have been made, rather to the manner and form than to the principle of the proposition which I am bringing forward; some within the walls of From the original edition, printed for J. Murray, Albemarle-street. this House, others in conversation out of doors. The first objection which I shall notice, is one which was originally started by the hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Bright) and has been just now repeated by the hon. member for Somersetshire, that this motion for the admission or rather the restoration of the Roman Catholic peers to parliament, is an insidious attempt to obtain a partial decision on the whole of what is called the Catholic question. In contradiction to this objection comes another, which asserts, that the separation of one class of the Catholic community from the rest, must necessarily prejudice the whole. I might in fairness set these contradictory objections face to face, and leave the one to balance the other; but I will offer a word or two on each. If my measure be a step to advance the general question, it cannot prejudice that question; if it be, on the other hand, an obstacle to the success of the general ques tion, then surely it must be hailed with delight by those who wish that question to be lost. In one sense, I admit, the proposed measure would be of advantage to the general question; in as much as the gain of any one of the several parts of which that question consists, would be a deduction from the amount of the difficulties to be overcome in carrying the whole. There is another and a more general sense, in which the mere introduction of the present measure may be an advantage to the general question; I mean from the discussion which it will occasion. In all cases, founded in truth and in justice, frequent discussion is of itself an advancement; and those who would find fault with me on that principle, tacitly admit that their view of the subject will not bear the test of discussion. But it would not be enough for their purpose to suppress discussion alone. Unless they can check the course of thought and arrest the flight of time, every hour must bring us nearer and nearer to that establishment of truth upon which ultimate success depends. In any other sense, I deny that the present question can be considered objectionable, on the plea of taking an unfair advantage: and it has one great recommendation peculiar to itself, that it places the matter of dispute on a basis accurately circumscribed, relieving it from many complicated considerations, in which the more general question is necessarily involved. Hitherto it has been objected to the advocates of the Catholic question, that they did not confine themselves to law and fact;thst they assumed data, and wandered into generalities; soared to the highest regions of abstract principle, and ranged in the widest fields of remote analogy; but that they did not respect the limitations of statutes and the landmarks of the constitution. I trust that in what I am now about to submit to the House I shall be able to change place with my antagonists; to meet them on the very ground which they pride themselves upon choosing -the ground of fact and law; and, without undervaluing the general topics which belong to the general question, to adhere strictly to the matter of the notice which I have given; and to address myself no further to that general question, than the discussion of principles which belong to it as a whole, must, in the consideration of one of its parts, render necessary and unavoidable. The other objection comes, I presume, from friends of the general question, who are so high-minded as to be indifferent to any progress towards success, unless the whole question can at once be carried; not because they think that this partial concession will confer valueless privileges, but that it will strip the general cause of many topics of declamation. Much as I am disposed to admit the efficacy of discussion, I confess myself not one of those who, to enrich future debates, would deprive myself of present practical advantage. If there be any force in such an objection, why not go back to the time when the penal code, with all its oppressive and odious inflictions, was in full, unmitigated operation;-when even the most jejune statements must have been powerfully eloquent, from the mere strength of the facts, the very amount of the sufferings which they had to detail? How must such objectors lament the removal of so many disabilities, under which the Roman Catholic has long ceased to groan ! How must they regret, that from an early period of the late reign up to the present time so many of the most galling fetters have been gradually taken off, and leave little more than the mark of them now visible ! How must they regret the act of 1778, which restored to the Roman Catholics the right of property; the act of 1791, which removed many vexatious disabilities, with respect to the exercise of religion, to professions, to civil, and in several important instances, political rights! How must they deplore the act of 1793, which gave to the Irish Roman Catholics-in many instances advisedly, distinctly, specifically in all more remotely, and by sure implicationpolitical power and consequence, in giving them the elective franchise! How must their sorrow have been increased by the measure which, five years ago, silently opened the army and navy to Catholic enterprize, bravery, and ambition! I suppose, Sir, all these boons are to be lamented; because if still withholden, they would have formed the ground-work of a most impressive speech, the topics of which are now comparatively reduced! I need not say how differently I view this matter, and how unwise I consider the opinion, that the advantage of better grounds of complaint would have been cheaply purchased at the expense of continued privations. But another objection is coupled with the last, which entitles it to further consideration. It is suggested, that the noble persons interested in the present measure have some disinclination to the introduction of it, because it does not include all those who are connected with them by the same religion. I give those noble individuals credit for the most liberal feelings on this subject; but I will add, that I have never appeared in this House as the sworn advocate of the Roman Catholics (I may have used the word advocate, but if so, it was in its common and popular sense-not as implying any special commission from them-or consultation with them); I have never pleaded for them, except on public principles-on principles of state policy, and of national benefit. I seek not their thanks or their praise; nor can I ask their opinions on a parliamentary measure of relief; and least of all the opinions of those among them who have the most peculiar interest in such a measure. Such would be my answer, if I had reason to believe the suggestion to which I have referred, to be correct: but I am relieved from any embarrassment on this point, by a communication which I have this day received from the individual of the highest rank in the Catholic-indeed in the British-peerage, which I have permission to read to the House. I will not abuse that permission by reading the whole letter: it is sufficient to say, that after alluding to the reports which have been circulated as to the objections said to exist in the minds of some of the Roman Catholic lords, the letter concludes with these words, "I am to assure you, on their authority, that there is no foundation whatever for such report." I will not add any thing to this declaration, except only to repeat to a larger audience what I have before said in this House, and often in private-that as I did not think it any part of my public duty to consult the opi. nion of the parties interested in this motion, so I declare, upon my honour, that the proposition which I shall have the honour to move, has not been suggested to me directly or indirectly by them, or by any person connected with them. The responsibility is entirely my own; and if I call upon parliament to legislate in the case of a few individuals, I do so as little from any individual instigation as if that legislation were to embrace the whole Roman Catholic community, or the whole community of England. Commons, in the name of common sense, what reason can there be for supposing, that as the Commons originated the disability, they may not also originate the relief? But why need I confine myself to this particular act? The act of the 5th Elizabeth originated with the House of Commons. The act for disqualifying the bishops originated with this House in 1641: an evil time, undoubtedly-an evil example, therefore, if it stood alone; but peculiarly applicable to the present argument, since twenty years afterwards the Commons repaired the outrage inflicted through that act, by originating the act of the 13th Charles 2nd, by which the bishops were restored to their seats in parliament. When I have such precedents before me, what need have I to go farther? or how can it be maintained for an instant, that there is any thing disrespectful to the other House of Parliament in originating a measure in which their privileges are concerned? much less that it is disrespectful that the same House which created the grievance, should in an hour of late but proper penitence, suggest the relief? Another objection which I have somewhere heard is, that there is something peculiarly improper in originating in the House of Commons, a meaure which concerns exclusively the rights and privileges of the House of Peers. This is an objection, the validity of which must be mainly This last objection reminds me of anodecided by precedent; and if I look to ther which may appear to be countenanced precedent, I find that the very act, the by the speech of the hon. member for operation of which I now propose to corSomersetshire-a speech so flattering to rect, originated in the House of Com- myself, that I am bound to acknowledge mons. The disqualification which it it with thankfulness, at the same time created, was peculiar to the Peers. It that I venture to dispute the inference to imposed, indeed, on both Houses of par- which it might seem to lead. I have been liament the declaration against transub- told that I am guilty of inconsistency in stantiation and so forth, which we still introducing a principle of reform in the take, at our respective tables, in this House of Lords, while I persevere in opHouse and in the House of Lords:-but posing a reform in the House of Comup to the passing of the act of the 30th mons. This being merely an argumentum of Charles 2nd, the relative situation in ad hominem, I may not pehaps be justified which the Roman Catholic Peers stood in taking up the time of the House to rewith respect to Roman Catholic com- fute it: but as it has been at all times moners was this; the commoners were deemed excusable if not important, that already required to take the oath of su- the proposer of any measure should enpremacy; the peers were not. The Ro- deavour to stand well as to his motives man Catholic commoners, therefore, were before those to whom he proposes it, I disabled from sitting in parliament, so far will say a few words on this subject. It as the oath of supremacy disqualified- often happens very provokingly, that the the Roman Catholic peers held their seats point on which a man piques himself unquestioned. Although it be true, there- most, is that which is selected for a charge fore, that the act legislated in apparently against him. Now, I really do flatter myequal terms with respect to both, it in self, that instead of being liable to this effect only confirmed a disability under charge of inconsistency in bringing forwhich commoners before laboured, but ward the present motion, I can show it to created for the peers one to which they be perfectly consistent with every princihad not been subjected before. If that ple on which I have resisted parliamenact, then, originated with the House ofiary reform. In resisting parliamentary |