dering all the additional facts relative to the subject which further inquiry afforded. On Feb. 17th the Right Honourable Frederick Robinson (vice president of the board of trade) moved for the House of Commons to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the state of the corn laws. This being done, he laid before the house nine several resolutions, of which the three first related to the free importation of grain to be warehoused, and afterwards exported, or to be taken for home consumption when importation for that purpose was allowable. The fourth, and most important, stated the average price of British corn at which free importation was to be allowed, and below which it was to be prohibited, and this, for wheat, was fixed at 80s. per quarter. An exception was made in favour of grain produced in the British colonies, which might be imported when Britishgrown wheat was at 678. Of the subsequent and all the succeeding debates we shall decline attempting to give any analysis, for the same reasons by which we were influenced in the last year's narrative, and which became still more cogent, in proportion as the discussion has been rendered more voluminous, with less novelty.The conclusion on the present day was, that the resolutions should be re-committed, and the report received on a subsequent day. The committee of the whole house being formed again on the 22d, the three first resolutions were read and agreed to, and the debate began on the fourth, by which the importing price was regulated. Mr. Baring, by whom it was opened, after much reasoning, founded on the impolicy of making decisive regulations at a time when public affairs were in such an unsettled state, moved as an amendment, that the measure to be adopted should be temporary, and intimated his intention of proposing 76s. as the price beyond which importation was to be permitted. The debate on this point continued by adjournment to the next day, when the amendment was rejected without a division. A motion for substituting 72s. to 80s. was then negatived, and the original motion for the latter sum was carried by 209 against 65.— The remaining resolutions were. afterwards agreed to. The report of the committee having been voted by a great mɛjority to be received, and the price of 80s. for importation being also carried against other proposed amendments, Mr. Robinson, on March 1st, brought in a bill "to amend the laws now in force for regulating the importation of corn," which was read the first time. On the motion for its second reading, March 3, an amendment was moved by Mr. Lami ton, for deferring the reading to that day six months. By this time, petitions against the bill, which began to be set on foot in the commercial and manufacturing districts as soon as the intention was perceived of reviving the measure, were coming in, very numerously signed. This circumstance afforded additional arguments to the opposers: the amendment, however, was negatived by 218 to 56, and the bill was ordered to be committed. On the 6th, the the order of the day being moved for going into a committee on the bill, which was carried, a motion was made by General Gascoyne for fixing the importation price at 76s. instead of 80. The debate on this point was interrupted by the assembling of a riotous mob before the parliament house (see Chronicle), and of a body of military to oppose them, which occasioned an examination of the high bailiff of Westminster, and the police magistrates, to ascertain the necessity of calling in the soldiers. The result was, a justification of the conduct of the executive government on the occasion, and the debate then proceeded. On a division, the amendment was rejected by 208 against 77. A motion being made on the 8th for bring up the report of the committee, Sir Gilbert Heathcote moved for deferring the report to that day six months, which was negatived by 168 to 50; and the same fate attended Mr. Baring's motion for a postponement till after the Easter recess. A vote for fixing the importation price at 80s. being then carried by 184 to 78, Mr. Baring again moved for a delay till next Friday se'nnight, which was negatived by a greater majority than his former motion. The third reading of the bill' being moved on the 10th, after the defeat of another motion for deferring it, and a motion for substituting 76s. to 80s. it passed that house. On March 13th the corn bill being introduced to the House of Lords, Lord Grey, after a speech in which he dwelt upon the variety of opinions which had been given in the evidence on the subject, and which denoted an insuffici ency of information, made a motion "to institute a further inquiry relative to the state of the growth, commerce, and consumption of grain, and the state of the laws relating thereto." The motion was strongly supported by Lord Grenville and others; but the general sense of the house in favour of proceeding in the business without delay, was shown by a majority of 124 against 18, for its rejection. A protest was, however, entered by eight of the minority lords. The second reading was moved by Lord Liverpool, on the 15th, and was carried on a division by a still more decisive majority. It is unnecessary to state the further proceedings in this house on the bill, which passed on the 20th. The consequences of this measure were by no means such as were expected either by its promoters or opposers. The effects either of former importations, or, more probably, of two plentiful harvests, and a greatly extended culture of grain, were to produce a gradual and steady reduction of price, so that instead of approaching the limits fixed for importation, it sunk to a level below that of several years past. The farmers, who were labouring under exorbitant rents, in addition to other increased expenses, were general sufferers; and the landlords found it necessary in many instances to make great abatements in their dues. In the result, many leases have been voided, and farms have been left without tenants. A short time before the Christmas recess, the Lord Chancellor had presented a bill to the House of Lords for the introduction of trial by by jury in civil causes, in Scotland, which, after being once read, was ordered to be printed. The second reading was moved on Feb. 23d, when his lordship said that he felt great satisfaction in stating, that the proposed measure was likely to be agreeable to those for whose benefit it was designed. He himself wished that it could have been carried further, but he was aware of the importance of effecting the change gradually, and in the manner most satisfactory to the persons concerned; and if it were adopted even to this partial extent, he did not doubt that at no distant period, they who were desirous of its further extension, would have their wishes gratified. Lord Stanhope declared hostility to the bill, chiefly on the grounds of its leaving the order of a trial by jury optional with the court, and that the juries were only allowed to decide on the facts, and not on them and the law together, as in England. His objections, however, were not supported, and the bill was read a second time. On Feb. 23d the house having resolved itself into a committee on the bill, when the first enacting clause was under consideration, the Lord Chancellor moved, as an amendment, that the words, "in "matter of fact," be left out. This motion produced the thanks of Lord Stanhope, and was agreed to. After various other amendments, when the clause relative to the jury's delivering their verdict was read, the lord Chancellor said that it was absolutely necessary to have it determined whether the jury should act by a plurality,of voices, or should be unanimous in their verdict. He declared himself decidedly in favour of the latter, and this opinion being concurred in by all who spoke on the occasion, a corresponding amendment was unanimously adopted. The report on the bill was taken into discussion on March 3d, when the Lord Chancellor said, that he had considered the subject with a view to ascertain whether it were posssible to point out particular cases in which it should be compulsory upon the judges to allow a trial by jury at the request of the parties, but that he did not perceive how this could at present be accomplished. The bill afterwards passed that house. In the House of Commons it was received with general approbation; and various amendments having been admitted, it passed into a law. On March 2d, Lord Archibald Hamilton, after an introductory speech relative to the Bank, made the following motion: "That a committee be appointed to examine and state the total amount of outstanding demands upon the Bank of England, and of the funds for discharging the same; and also, to examine into and state their opinion upon the effect produced upon the currency and commercial relations of the united kingdoms, by the different facts passed since the year 1797, for continuing the restriction on payments in cash by the bank of England, and to report their opinion how far, and under what limitations, it may be expedient to continue the same." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opposing the motion, said that he was about to submit to the house house a proposition which would limit the Bank restrictions to a definitive period; and as the noble lord's arguments were founded on a supposition that the restrictions would be continued to an indefinite period, it was scarcely necessary to enter at length into a refutation of them. He, however, proceeded to show that the information arising from the questions to be submitted to the committee would, more than any thing else, defeat the resumption of cash payments, and place the Bank at the mercy of every speculator in bullion in the country. After considering some of the particulars of the proposed inquiries, and endeavouring to prove that there was no necessity for the committee which had been moved, he stated the grounds upon which he thought it probable that cashpayments would be resumed in July, 1816. In the debate which ensued, contrary opinions were, as usual, maintained upon the intricate subject of the circulating medium and public credit; and some of the opposition members expressed great doubts respecting the probability of a resumption of cashpayments at the period assigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In conclusion, the House divided, when there appeared, for the motion 38, against it 134. Immediately after this was disposed of, the House went into a committee for continuing the act of the 44th of his Majesty, for restricting the cash-payments of the Bank of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the said restrictions should continue till July 5, 1816, Mr. Grenfell proposed the amendment of adding the words "and no longer." This was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as seeming to limit the discretion of the house; and from his opposition and the total silence of the Governor of the Bank, an unfavourable augury was drawn of the resumption of cash-payments at that period. The amendment was rejected by 92 to 35. At the third reading of the bill, Mr. Horner proposed as an amendment, the insertion of a clause purporting, "That whereas it is highly desirable that the Bank should, as soon as possible, resume its payment in cash, immediately after the passing of this act, measures should be taken by the Bank to enable them to resume such payments." The latter part of the clause being objected to, the mover consented to withdraw it, and the first part was admitted. The bill soon after passed into a law. The attention of the House of Commons was called on March 21st to a singular circumstance connected with parliamentary privilege. Lord Cochrane, who was a prisoner in the King's Bench, in consequence of a sentence pronounced upon him, for his concern in a conspiracy to defraud the public, and during his confinement had been re-elected representative for Westminter, having contrived to escape from prison, after remaining for a time concealed, went on the day abovementioned to the clerk's room in the House of Commons, where members are usually sworn previously to taking the oaths at the table of the House. Being in formed formed that it was necessary that he should have with him the certificate of his return, he sent for it from the crown-office, and then went into the House, where he seated himself on the bench at the right hand of the chair, no member being at that time present, and prayers not having been read. The marshal of the King's Bench, who had been apprized where his lordship was to be found, now entered with two or three of his officers, and carried him back to prison, notwithstanding his remonstrance that they had no right to lay hands upon him in that place. After the House was assembled, the Speaker informed them that he had received a letter from William Jones, esq. marshal of the King's-bench prison, which he read. Its purpose was to acquaint the House with what he had done, and that he was in waiting to receive their commands on the occasion, humbly hoping that he had not committed any breach of privilege by the steps he had taken. In the conversation which followed, it was agreed that the marshal had not intended any violation of the privileges of the House; but the Speaker confessing it to be a new case, and giving his opinion for referring it to a committee of privileges, a motion was made to that effect by lord Castlereagh, which was agreed to. On the 23d the committee gave in their report, in which, after stating all the facts of the case as above related, they gave the following result of their consideration of the subject. "In deliberating on a matter of such high importance, your committee have to regret that they could find nothing in the Journals of this House to guide them: the case is entirely of a novel nature; they can therefore only report it as their opinion-That under the particular circumstances given in evidence, it does not appear to your committee that the privileges of parliament have been violated, so as to call for the interposition of the House by any proceedings against the marshal of the King'sbench." This report was ordered to be laid on the table, and the whole affair thus terminated. CHAPTER |